Alex Hendrix's Affirmative Case

Affirmative Case:

Intro:
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” This quote by Abraham Lincoln shows that he did not want to be ruled over by one person, nor did he want to be the single ruler over people. One of the ways to avoid dictatorship is through popular sovereignty, which is why I agree with this year’s resolution. Resolved: A governments legitimacy is determined more by it’s respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.

Definitions:
Before I go any further, I must define a few key words in this year’s resolution.

1. Government: The exercise of authority over an organization, institution, state or district.
2. Legitimacy: The quality or state of being legitimate
3. Respect: To feel or show honor or esteem for
4. Popular: of or carried on by the common people or all the people
5. Sovereignty: The state or quality of being sovereign
6. Right: That which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law,
nature or tradition.

Values:

1. Control:
My first value for this debate case is that of control. A legitimate government must have control of it’s people and of the situations at hand. If a government loses it’s control over it’s people, they can overpower the government and take control.

2. Equality
My second value in this debate case is that of equality. Only a government that was elected by equality of opinion from it’s people. A government that ensures equality to it’s people with basic rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a government that has control of it’s people and the situations at hand is legitimate.


Contentions:
1. Individual Rights Differ
Everyone has different views of basic rights, such as: life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. You may say that the way to achieve life is to live life to the fullest by doing whatever you please. However, I may interpret the right to life as the ability to live and that’s it. You may say that liberty is to do whatever you like without accordance to the law. However, I might say that liberty is freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom itself! As you can see, people interpret their basic rights much differently than someone else might! How can we be equal if we cannot agree on basic rights?

2. A Government Must have Control Over It’s People
I do not mean that a government must enforce heavy judgment on it’s people in order to keep control, I simply mean a government must not let the rights of it’s people surpass the law. For example, beginning in 1966 Saddam Hussein began to slowly gain power in Iraq partially because the government did not maintain control over the group that Saddam was apart of. The president at the time resigned because of constant pressure fro Saddam. Once Saddam became president he put several members of his family into important positions in the Iraqi government. He used those family members to his advantage and he killed many people he perceived as threats. So you can see, if the government does not control it’s people and restrain them to the law, they will rise in power and cause destruction.

3. A Government Must Strive to Keep Equality of Basic Rights Among it’s People
Not only must a government maintain control over it’s people in order to be legitimate, it must also distribute equal basic rights to all of it’s people. If a government takes away the rights of an individual in order to restrain him, that government is not legitimate. The government, however, cannot provide the same rights to every person, but if the government upholds and individuals basic rights, than it is legitimate. Voltaire sums up my point in a quote: “All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free”.

In conclusion, a government must have control over it’s people and must strive to distribute the basic rights equally. “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none” -Thomas Jefferson “Before God we are equally wise and equally foolish.” -Albert Einstein

How candifferent interpretations of rights get in the way of equality? I am not really seeing the connection there.

You defined "Legitimacy" as: "The quality or state of being legitimate", but that really doesn't help or clarify becuase we don't know what "Legitimate" actually means.

Just for case help, it might be good for you to cite your sources for the quotes and definitions.

1. If different interpretations are allowed, then one individual may recieve more benefits from that particular right than another individual.




Ps. Thanks for the heads up. I thought about defining "Legitimate" but I wasn't sure. And I will be sure to put the sources on the case.

According to your definition of the right to life, you believe that somoene who is living is excercising their right to life?
You also say that a government is legitimate if it gives the governed certain rights, such as, the right to life, correct?
Do you agree that the American government illegitimized itself by saying that slaves were property, not people?
Did slaves exist?
So they were alive?
So they were excersising their right to life?
So the government was legitimate because they allowed the slaves to have their right to life?
(This was all one train of thought. Sorry if it gets confusing.)

1. Where in my case did I give a definition for "right to life'"?
2. A government the ensures basics rights to it's people is legitimate
3. No
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Their government (at the time) did not ensure their right to life
7. Once again, the slaves were not OUR people. Once they became free citizens of the United States they were given basics rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

1 & 2. I have no idea who Joseph Stalin is or what he did so I don't know if he had control over his people or if his government was
legitimate
3. No. Because I believe murder is not a resolution to an argument.
4. Yes and No
5. Yes
6. Generally, Yes.

For question one and two, how about Mao or Hitler?

Alex4JC wrote:

4. Yes and No

Could you explain your answer? It can't be yes and no unless you mean different parts of it.

1. Hitler had control over his people by force.
2. No. Hitler did not have a legitimate government.
3. You have asked a difficult question. The first time I believe you were asking a "yes or no" answer. The question cannot simply be answered "yes or no". The full body scanners are for the protection of the passengers. I would say Yes, they are invading an individual's privacy in order to keep many more people self, including yourself. If these body scanners were not in use, terrorists (or anyone) could simply hop onto a plan with a bomb or gun and blow the plane up. Now, think of it this way: You sacrifice your privacy for your life. Sacrifices must be made by individuals in order for equality of rights (in this case, life). So, these body scanners may be taking away your right to privacy temporarily but they prevent one person (or more) from taking away the right to live from many people.
4. yes
5. yes, as long as it is in accordance to the law.
6. Please clarify what you mean...

#3
Couldn't that use a less invasive means like they have been using up until very recently? In other words, before these scanners they had scanners that wouldn't be able to view you naked.
Do you think we should use the newly instituted pat-downs?

I'm sure one day that will be possible, but for now this is the best way to do it. Now hold on, they don't view you naked they see shapes (which are easily determined body parts).

I disagree with the pat-downs. I don't think the full body scan and the pat-downs are both needed. Because the reason for the full body scanners is to see if there is anything inside a human (i.e a bomb), something the magnetic scanners could not pick up. So, there really is no need to be physically checked after you have been scanned unless there is something wrong with the machine or there is some suspicion.

Actually, they almost do view you naked at least that's what I understand about it. Anyways, the pat-downs are only used if the person doesn't want to or TSA workers believe it is necessary. A lot of people are mad about this. So could you give me a final answer in light of this.

I'm sorry. As I said before, I cannot give you a simple answer.

Which value did you choose, Alex?

Umm, I think I'm going with the value Mrs. Gray suggested: Democracy

I wrote a brief on democracy. maybe you could go over it and make your case better.

Thanks Sam. I'll do that.

Alex, where did you get those definitions?

Webster's new world dictionary. Why do you ask?