Ashley Eaton's Affirmative Case!!!

Intro: John Adams in his Thoughts on Government wrote, “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” It is for this reason that I stand resolved that: a government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights. Hi, my name is Ashley Eaton and I will be your Affirmative speaker for today’s debate round.

Definitions:
Popular Sovereignty: a doctrine in political theory that government is created by and subject to the will of the people (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition)
Government: The form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc. is governed (dictionary.com)
Legitimacy: the quality of being legal or acceptable
Individual: a single person or thing, especially when compared to the group or set to which they belong (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
Right: a justified claim or entitlement, or the freedom to do something (Encarta world English Dictionary, North American Edition)

Value Analysis:
This resolution asks me to determine if popular sovereignty is more important than individual rights in assessing the legitimacy of a government. Governments are tasked with the responsibility to protect the rights of the most citizens of the country possible. So, the Common Good is my value for this debate round. The common good is defined as, General, Having moral qualities best adapted to its design and use, or the qualities which God's law require (Merriam Webster 1828 words defined separately)

Criterion
In order to achieve common good we must use a liberal democracy. This is why I have chosen liberal democracy as my criterion (way to get to the value). It is basically a democracy where the people elect others to represent them. It gives citizens the power to elect representatives to create or turn down any piece of legislation works.

C1: Liberal democracy achieves The common good
American citizens cherish the freedom inherent in a liberal democracy. The common good is achieved in this country. The citizens vote for representatives and senators to represent their ideals in Congress. The elected person’s job is to represent the people. If the majority are content with the way that things are going, the official will be reelected to office. This process ensures that people who will do a good job representing the majority’s views will be in power.


C2: A governments’ focus should be to achieve the common good
When an elected government focuses on the majority of its citizens, the result is the common good. As, Jimmy Carter put it, “It is difficult for the common good to prevail against the concentration of those who have a special interest, especially if the decisions are made behind locked doors”. When governments decide to appease the rights of every individual in its country it inevitably ends up with innumerable special interest groups each wanting to promote their own cause. If the government listens, then they will end up with people pushing for and getting some crazy laws that will appease a minority but will in no way benefit the majority. The United States Senate, wrote an essay on their website describing various things lobbyists and special interest groups do, but they also included a list of non-beneficial things special interest groups do, “Another problem is that special interest groups often wield an influence that is greatly out of proportion to their representation in the general population.” An example of this is the gay movement it isn’t proportional to the population yes they wield great influence. A government’s role is to benefit the most people and to represent the views of the majority who elected them to office.

C3: A governments’ respecting Popular Sovereignty does not negate its respecting people’s individual rights.
What is being said here is that governments should value popular sovereignty over individual rights. If the majority of the population wants a portion of their rights temporarily taken away to have something accomplished for them, should the government say no to this? Should it do something other than what the people who elected them into office want? This is a way to ensure you won’t be reelected. If the government focuses on the common good of its citizens then popular sovereignty must be respected.

Conclusion:
In this Affirmative constructive I hope to have shown how popular sovereignty is a better way to determine a governments legitimacy than is individuals rights. This view was demonstrated through my contentions.
C1: Liberal democracy achieves The common good
C2: A governments’ focus should be to achieve the common good
C3: A governments’ respecting Popular Sovereignty does not negate its respecting people’s individual rights.
In closing, I would like to offer this quote by Abraham Lincoln, “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Thank you and I urge an Affirmative ballot.

Does popular sovereignty always uphold even basic individual rights, such as the right to privacy?

Where did I say popular sovereingty ALWAYS upholds individual rights?

So, does it uphold a basic right such as the right to privacy, or not? (Please answer yes or no.)

No, popular sovereignty does NOT ALWAYS uphold individual rights.

In history has popular sovereignty always acheived the common good?

Not always but more often it hs than individual rights

I don't believe that there are any individual rights that are universally agreed on.

please give an example when someone was murdered, and it benefitted the general populous

Should you murder me because then there would be more unity?

BTW this is cross-x time and I was stating a theoretical question

I don't believe that killing someone ever achieves the common good. Unless the person has committed a serious crime. In that case though, it's justice.

Sorry, I posted that question in the wrong category.

Do you believe that killing someone or imprisoning then is okay as long as it is for the common good?

if you need an example... just think of terrorists... the ones who haven't killed themselves yet...

yes, I agree with that. I honestly don't believe there is anything wrong with punishing someone if they've broken that law

What if that individual has not done anything wrong according to the law? Remeber, we are not talking about the United States government only, this applies to ALL governments.

I'm confused how does imprisoning an innocent person acheive the common good?

I think he means, "Is it ok for an innocent person to be put in jail for example if it achieves the common good?"

Christian Di Lorenzo wrote:

I think he means, "Is it ok for an innocent person to be put in jail for example if it achieves the common good?"

I understand that, I just don't understand how the common good is achieved through imprisonment.

Quote :

I understand that, I just don't understand how the common good is achieved through imprisonment.

They're just presenting you with a situation. Saying IF imprisonment could achieve the common good, is it ok?

Mark Compton wrote:

Quote :

I understand that, I just don't understand how the common good is achieved through imprisonment.

They're just presenting you with a situation. Saying IF imprisonment could achieve the common good, is it ok?

sure i guess. i think. sorry i'm really sickk so i'm having a hard time thinking straight. but I'll go with yes.

In cross x you said popular sovereignty achieves the common good more then individual rights. Can you give me an example of where that happened?

That may be something to include in a neg case because otherwise, she'll take all of your time.

Nathan: The Magna Carta, King John was not looking out for the common good and usurping power for himself. So, the citizen's of England banded together and made King John sign it. The Magna Carta limited King John's powers and gave the citizens under him more freedom. In this case popular sovereignty was the means that achieved the common good, not individual rights.