Sam Chase's Negative Case, against one Mr. Mark Compton

Negative Case

Introduction

Back before World War 2, the people of Russia elected a man named Lenin. They believed he was the best choice for leader and would give them the freedoms they desired. Sadly, they were mistaken. Because of the majority's decision to elect Lenin, a man-made famine was caused that killed over twice as many people as Hitler. This happened because Lenin was violating the people's right to property, taking all of their produce, and selling it on the world market. If he had simply respected the rights of the people, nothing of the sort would have happened. Using this and many other instances as backing, today I firmly stand resolved that” A government’s legitimacy is not more determined by popular sovereignty than individual rights”. I agree with my opponent’s definitions of government, legitimacy, and popular sovereignty. However, I choose to give an alternate definition of Individual Rights, along with some other definitions.

Definitions

Individual Rights: Any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)
Liberty: Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Value Analysis and Justification

Today, over liberty, I choose to value inalienable rights. Why wouldn’t someone want to know they have certain rights that no one can take away? The founding fathers believed and clearly stated that “we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights”. If a government protects these inalienable rights, it is legitimate. Liberty, As defined, is freedom from control. Liberty, as defined, or freedom from control etc. is never a good thing because it allows one person to infringe on another’s rights.

Criterion

Today I will be using equality as my criterion. If we have equality on all levels of civilization, (government included) our rights will be protected. The Magna Charta was created for this purpose. The barons of old England wanted the King to be bound by certain laws too. In the end, all of England ended up with more rights and freedoms, simply because the people wanted equality.

Contentions

Contention 1: Popular Sovereignty is always changing
One needs to only look at America’s fluctuating opinions on independence to recognize that Popular Sovereignty changes with the people. In the beginnings of our country, we didn’t want to break away from England. In fact, most people were against it when the colonies first became large bodies. Nevertheless, years later the majority (popular sovereignty) wanted to break away from England and begin the United States. For this reason we cannot rely on popular sovereignty as my opponent proposes. In his first contention my opponent said that the people have control of the government. Why would we want a government that is controlled by a constantly changing body of men and women? This leads us to my second contention.

Contention 2: Individual Rights are always the same.
I will begin by saying that we must try not to confuse wants and rights. Just because a drug addict says he needs drugs does not mean he has a right to them. They are merely something he wants. The inherent rights that I choose to uphold today are those on the Bill of Rights. No governing body should be allowed to take such rights away. A proper government equally gives these rights to all people, and tries its best to keep it that way. A legitimate government respects the rights of the governed. They protect their rights with vigor. This is much easier than protecting popular sovereignty because, as I said earlier, the true rights of man do not change.

Contention 3: Inalienable Rights must never be violated.
When I use the word revolt here, I do not mean running through cities burning cars and tearing down monuments, (although this sometimes does happen.) By revolt I mean an active rebellion in which the governed become complacent of the government and do something about it. Take the French Revolution for example. The government was violating the rights of the lesser classes, and this lead to revolt. However, the new French government failed miserably because instead of changing how things had been, the people merely remade the previous government with different people. Unintentionally mind you, but it happened all the same. Now, instead of having a king that tyrannized them, they had a whole government of people who tyrannized them. If they had simply made all people equal in their government, the rights of everyone would have been protected and the new government would have succeeded.

Conclusion

As you can see, there are many reasons a government that respects individual Rights over popular sovereignty is legitimate. After examining my contentions, Popular Sovereignty is always changing, Individual Rights are always the same, and Inalienable Rights must never be violated, it is easy to agree with me in supporting the negative side over the affirmative in this round. I will use a quote my opponent said, “For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.” – Jonathan Swift. My opponent wishes us to believe that Swift is saying the consent of the majority of the governed. He really means all of the governed. Do we want all of the governed, or most to be taken into consideration?

Where is your definition of liberty from? Also Stalin wasn't elected by the people.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you jump right into addressing your opponent's case. You have your constructive and explain why individual rights is better then you start addressing the problems you see with your opponent's case...But like I said, I may be wrong.

I think cross-x aff is next...

Well yeah, but Sam addressed the problems with Mark's case at the very beginning then did his constructive.

Sam, Although there is no hard and fast rule that says you can't attack your opponent's case from the get go I would caution against it. Some experienced debaters use what we call a "Flex Neg" case structure that systematically walks your judge through your opponents case pointing out the flaws while offering an alternative/ stronger argument. In a lose sense, this is what you have done. However, or with this said I think you still need to develop your argument against the affirmative a bit first before you immediately start attacking the specifics of your opponent's case. This would warm your judges up a bit to who you are and what you are standing for. You don't want to appear like a "Vulture" waiting to attack!

Using the traditional case structure, which I highly encourage at this point, You would warm your judge up with a creative introduction that highlights your case theory on the negative. Tell the judge what your value is and what issues you might have with your opponents definitions, then move on to systematically "Chewing" up your opponents arguments.

Have fun with this and remember that your job is to "smoosh" the judge into agreeing with your side of the argument.

Mark, my definition of liberty is from Dictionary.com