Rebekah's 2010 Affirmative Case!

Affirmative Case
By Rebekah Mackin

Introduction:
Popular sovereignty, we make choices, we decide. Individualism destroys unity. Patrick Henry, in his last public speech declared; “United we stand, divided we fall.”A legimate government respects and maintains popular sovereignty.
Resolution:
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 Rebekah Mackin and I will be your Affirmative speaker for today’s debate round.
Definitions:
I give the following definitions to clarify the resolution.
Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
Government: The persons or council which administer the laws of a kingdom or state.
Legitimacy: Genuineness
Unity: Agreement, concord, the state of being together
Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition:

Popular Sovereignty: a doctrine in political theory that government is created by and subject to the will of the people


dictionary.com:
Individual Rights: The fundamental rights, especially those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere.

Value:
My value today is unity.
Value Justification:
The reason my value is unity is because, without unity a government CAN NOT have prospetiry, order, strength, or the ability to have a legitimate government.
Criterion:
To uphold the value of unity, my criterion for today is Popular Sovereignty.
Contentions:
Contention 1: Contention one: Individualism leads to chaos. Individualism leads to chaos. As I said in my introduction, individualism destroys unity. When a government values popular soverignty it must also value unity. When there’s no contol and no unity, each individual is then ‘free’ to do whatever they themselves feel is ‘right’. This then leads to chaos since everyone is breaking laws that the government has in place. However, because of individual rights they are allowed to break those laws. When laws are broken, others become violent. Therefore, when a government upholds unity, citizens have set boundries and are brought together in unity. An example of this is children and their parents. Without parent’s rules, almost every child in America would be in jail or dead because their parent’s rules were against the child’s individual rights.
Contention 2: Contention two: Untiy promotes popular sovereignty. Unity promotes popular sovereignty. Many people join in unity everyday to change what they belive in. An example of this is when the founders of this country united and built a government and establised it’s laws. Together, in unity, everybody and anybody can do great and amazing things. Therefore unity promotes popular sovereignty.
Contention 3: My third and last contention is a quote from Abraham Lincoln which states; “A house divided cannot stand”. “A house divided cannot stand”. Therefore a household, group, government, etc. without unity cannot survive. When there is no unity people will divide. When people divide there is no country.

Conclusion:
A government’s legitiamacy is determined more by it’s respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights because, based on my value of unity, individualism leads to chaos, untiy promotes popular sovereignty, and A house divided cannot stand. For this reason I strongly urge you to affirm the resolution. Thank you, and I now stand ready for cross examination.

So you are saying the in orderfor the government to be legitimate it must be united, correct? If a government is not unified, is I necessary for the government to remove the cause at all costs?

can kids under the age of 18 vote? (yes/no)

Yes. Can you please restate your second question?

rebekah to make this easier would you mind saying who's question you're answering because I'm confused...

Sorry Ashely....I had been replying to Alex at the same time you responded...so...
Alex: Yes, please restate your second question
Ashely:No

can kids be elected to represent the people of a government?

no

so, then you would agree that children aren't a part of the government. correct?

correct

Did the founding fathers create the United States through popular sovereingty?

No, but there was no form of popular sovereignty at that time

do people ever do bad things?

yes

Just to let you BOTH know I edited my definition of Legitimacy.

So for a government to be legitimate it must be genuine and in control right?

A government must be united in order for it to be legitimate.

But your definition of legitimate was genuine. In Iraq under Sodom Hussein the people we'rent united but using force Sodom established a genuine government. Therefore your two definitions contradict each other.

The government does have to be genuine, I didn't mean to say no to a genuine government, I was just explaining my value.

So a government has to be united and genuine to be legitimate?

Yes!

Is popular sovereignty a good thing?
Does individualism always lead to chaos?

Yes.
No.

If the popular sovereignty decided to kill you would you still think it a good thing?

What did I do? Why do they want to kill me?