Christian's Aff Case 2010

Subject: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:53 pm

Christian’s Aff Case 2010

Introduction
(The man, the boy, and the donkey)
------A man and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?”
------So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.”
------So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn't gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.”
------Well the Man didn't know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passersby began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren't you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor Donkey of yours—you and your hulking son?”
------The man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the Donkey's feet to it, and raised the pole and the Donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together, he was drowned.
------“That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:
------“Please all, and you will please none.”

------This story from Aesop’s Fables presents a moral that should be considered in reference to this year’s resolution: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by popular sovereignty than individual rights. If you try to please everyone by considering each individual person’s wellbeing across all of the country, you will end up not pleasing anyone. Therefore, to maximize the views of the people, the resolution should be affirmed. Before the debate over this resolution begins, we need to define some terms...

Definitions
Government
the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed (Dictionary.com)

Legitimacy
“The state of being legitimate; conformity to law, rule, or principle” (Century Dictionary)
We must realize that all law, rules, and principle are based on God’s morals, since He is the source of objective Truth.

Popular Sovereignty
the doctrine that the people are sovereign and a government is subject to the will of the people - Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition
“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.” - Sydney J. Harris

Individual Rights
“Individual rights” is a legal term referring to what one is allowed to do and what can be done to an individual. - wordiq.com

Values
Strength
------"Democracy is like a rising tide; it only ebbs to flood back with greater force, and soon one sees that for all its fluctuation it is always gaining ground." (Alexis de Tocqueville) Strength relates to the value because the people choose and manage their government; naturally they wish to choose the best leaders to govern them. This idea can be compared to an exploration, the people going on the trip will appoint a leader who is most knowledgable and is the best leader. Strength should be valued to create a system that can stand the test of time. Aristotle once said, “In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.”

Unity
------"Sovereignty, for the same reason as makes it inalienable, is indivisible; for will either is, or is not, general; it is the will either of the body of the people, or only part of it. In the first case, the will, when declared, is an act of sovereignty and constitutes law: in the second, it is merely a particular will, or act of magistracy--- at the most degree." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
------If popular sovereignty is implemented, because the majority determines who the government is, that system, the government and people, will have unity. Just because, however, every single person doesn’t agree doesn’t mean that we don’t have unity. When I say unity, I mean general consensus.

Control to the people
------Abraham Lincoln once said, “Democracy [or popular sovereignty] is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” While the government is working in the interests of the people and under the values of God, the system stays the same. When, however, the government starts to fall to the power mongers and change such that it isn’t serving the people, it isn’t legitimate and it will fall apart.

Maximization of rights
------To achieve the maximization of rights for individuals, the people should choose the best and determine their rights as they for themselves personally. My opponent may say that the people don’t always choose the right values. However, we must remember that a legitimate government is one that rules based on law which is determined by God, the law-giver.

Contentions

Anything other than a legitimate popular sovereignty system doesn’t produce the most prosperous nation. (Tag Line: All other forms of government don’t lead to the most prosperous nation)
1. Reason 1: For example in Greece, as long as they upheld a legitimate popular sovereignty, their nation was successful. When they were in the wars and under many different rulers, the legitimate popular sovereignty started to decline and so did the Empire.
2. Reason 2: Former President George W. Bush once said this about Russia, “All the nations that border Russia will benefit from the spread of democratic values and so will Russia itself. Stable, prosperous democracies are good neighbors trading in freedom and posing no threat to anyone.”
3. Importance: This means that the best form of government is a legitimate popular sovereignty rule.
If a country has strength, unity, control to the people, maximization of rights or any combination of them then it is a legitimate government.
1. It has more than just individual rights. Yes, individual rights can be a legitimate government, but the resolution states that a government’s legitimacy is determined more… Therefore, popular sovereignty should be embraced.
Legitimate popular sovereignty is the only system that can uphold strength, unity, control to the people, and maximization of rights.
1. I have already discussed this in my justification of my values.

------To summarize, my three contentions are all other forms of government don’t lead to the most prosperous nation, legitimacy is determined by strength, unity, control to the people, maximization of rights or any combination of them, and legitimate popular sovereignty is the only system that can uphold strength, unity, control to the people, and maximization of rights. Therefore, I advise and urge you based on this case to affirm the resolution.

Subject: Cross-Ex Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:22 pm

So you are saying a government must uphold strength, unity, control to the people and maximization of rigths in order to be legitimate, correct?

Subject: Answer Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:56 pm

No it must uphold at least one of them.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:26 pm

So your government is legitimate if it maximizes it's citizens rights, but does not give them control?

Number of posts : 26 Age : 27 Registration date : 2010-08-26

Doesn't individual rights uphold maximization of rights as well?

Subject: Answer Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:34 pm

Simply, yes.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:58 pm

So what is the purpose of maximizing citizens' rights if they don't have control?

Subject: Answer Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:10 pm

They control the whole system.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:30 pm

Can a country founded on individual rights be strong?
Can a country founded on individual rights be united?
Can a country founded on individual rights maximize the rights of its citizens?
Without any explanation can you tell me which right is higher? (Just give one word.)

Subject: Response Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:43 pm

Yes to your first three questions. It isn't a matter of whether it is possible, but rather whether it is consistent.
To your last question, all values should be valued equally just like there are no such things as "white lies."

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:06 pm

Would you call the United states a prosperous nation?

[EDIT]

Which Greek City states were democracies or were all of them democracies?

Subject: Response Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:21 pm

In terms of economics, we are going downhill.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:23 pm

Was the United States a legitimate Government before it broke away from England?

Subject: Reply Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:26 pm

It wasn't a government at all before it left England since it was under England.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:29 pm

Would you agree that the declaration of Independence is the document that told the world America was independent.

Subject: Reply Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:29 pm

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:32 pm

Would you agree that under the Declaration of Independence the USA government was legitimate?

Subject: Reply Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:36 pm

The government hadn't completely been decided.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:38 pm

But it had a congress making laws. It had an army fighting against a foreign power, all the state governments had given their delegates to the congress to approve Independence and start a new nation. Therefore when the Declaration of Independence was signed, congress became a legitimate government because it had the popular sovereignty behind it right?

Subject: Reply Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:59 pm

The democratic republic was later, though.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:31 pm

No in fact. The new constitution was later, but America was functioning as a Nation during the revolutionary war. Ever wondered what happened to the government between 1776 and Washington becoming pres.?

Subject: Question? Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:20 pm

I don't get this. Why are you quizzing me on the topic of whether America was a government between 1776 and the formal establishment of the democratic republic; iAmerica isn't a government of popular sovereignty.

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:06 pm

I'm asking the questions here.

So you would agree that without the Declaration of Independence there would be no Constitution right?

Do you have a pet chihuahua?

Subject: Reply Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:49 pm

The declaration of independence separated us from England, it didn't establish a government.
No

Subject: Re: Christian's Aff Case 2010 Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:23 am

Would there have been a constitution without it. It was the dounding dosument correct?

» Katie's Affirmative Case 2010
» Rebekah's 2010 Affirmative Case!
» Mark's Aff Case
» Carl's 2009-2010 Negative Case
» Ali's 2010 Negative refuting Alex Hendrix's Affirmative Case