Rebuttal
(This is against Rebekah's Affirmative case)
Now I'm quickly going to adress my oponent's case.
C1: Here my opponent seems to twist the deffinition of IR's to being whatever one feels like doing and believes to be right. In her definitions she says that IR's are basically the fundamental rights which the G cannot interfere with. This is far to board however and could emcompass anything and so must be limited to life, liberty and property. If these are our IR's then does could it lead to chaos? If someone takes my IR's away they are punished. People wanting theirs and other rights protected doesn't mean that laws will be broken in the process. William Willberforce is an example of this.
The example that my opponent used in her C1 cannot be regarded as a valid example because it uses family government as its base, but according to the deffinition she presented for government, government applies only to the state and country. The family is not the state, the state is the government. Therefore the family is not the government. We're talking about how Individual rights pertain to the government. Because the family is not the government based on the definitions given this example is irrelevent.
C2: This very tag line does not make sense. Untiy promotes popular sovereignty? In light of her case this is interesting because her criterion, her means to achieve her value is PS. Here she has PS being the end goal and unity being the means to achieve it. The order is mixed up. Which is more important? I wish to present the idea that niether is. According to this quote the reason for which people are unified by PS it is for IR's, "The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights”
-William Blackstone (English judge, jurist and professor who produced the historical and analytic treatise on the common law)
C3:A house divided cannot stand. I agreee with this too a point. when people disagree with eachother to the extent where they raise arms against each other. thaen yes. it cannot stand. But if when people have an argument they do not need to fall and separate. They can resolve their differences peacefully. Also, just because a government values IR's does not mean it will divide. The reason for the creation of the United States was to protect IR's and when it began that's how it started. Everyone had different opinions on how to work with the rights but the important thing to remember is that they did not split the government on it.
popular sovereignty isn't irrelevent it's just that IR's Are the way we achieve a legitimate G.
