Nathan Wilson’s Negative Case
In the late 18th century a group of country bumpkins, town brewers, and pioneer frontiers men, defeated the greatest military power the world had ever known. These men were not as skilled as the soldiers they were fighting, their commander in chief only won one decisive military battle, they only had 100 cannons, and their muskets were hunting rifles, as opposed to the wartime muskets carried by their opponents, but they still won. Only a handful of men versus the greatest Army in the world, plus hired mercenaries and yet these men won. How we ask. How? They won because they were driven by individual rights, which is why I negate this year’s resolution, a governments legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty then individual rights.
I agree with my opponents definitions in most cases except with his definition for individual rights and legitimacy. Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language defines legitimacy as genuineness, so a legitimate government is one that is in control and governing a people. Therefore the government of Cuba which is in control and governing is legitimate, while if I were to randomly come up with a government for the USA and put myself as ruler and start trying to rule my government would be illegitimate because I would have no one under my control. For this debate, I would like to define Individual Rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (Declaration of Independence, and John Locke,) also know as the ability to have possessions.
My value for this debate is going to be reality. I have heard many debaters this year make up there own little governments where there solutions work. All well and good but welcome to the real world. I would say when arguing this definition we at least should keep it to countries that are in existence, and can be pointed to. Otherwise there is no real value.
My criterion for reality is the resolution and how reality applies to it. I would like to say that this resolution is designed to be used in the real world, and therefore making up your own countries where this works, should not be considered.
This leads me to my first contention. Government is the question. What is the government that we are debating in this resolution? Since legitimacy is genuineness, then a legitimate government must be one that is real. While I know that what is real is a great philosophical question, Noah Webster’s American dictionary of the English Language defines reality as “being in existence,” or as Philip K. Dick a philosopher and author said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away” Therefore a real government is one that is in existence. Accordingly, there are 195 countries in the world. Although only 192 are in the United Nations, the other 3, Taiwan, Vatican City, and Kosovo, are independent and in control with genuine governments, they just are not admitted.
My second point is to show how individual rights legitimize a country. What is the first individual right I named? It was life. Almost if not every single country that ever existed has to respect life on some level. How do I know this? Well a government if it doesn’t respect life just kills its citizens, basically all of them are in danger of and getting killed. Hitler respected the life of his Germans, not his Jews. The Germans acknowledged Hitler for this the Jews did not. If a government does not legitimize life, it will have no citizens to rule, and it won’t be a country any more. What about liberty? Well let me ask you a question. Do you consider the slaves before the civil war citizens of the United States? They weren’t treated as such, they didn’t have liberty, they weren’t even full citizens. At every basic level, the citizens of almost any country have the right to move, and do to a little extent there own will. If you go to places like America before the Civil War, we find that consistently, the slaves revolted, showing that they did not respect their government, and therefore it was illegitimate to them. What about Haiti, the slaves their not only revolted but won. Finally what about property? Well there have been plenty of countries where the people have not owned land and yet had an existing government. But what happened if we look at communist China? We see Tiananmen Square, another revolt by the people, because their rights weren’t being respected. I would like to ask my opponent to give one example where people revolted because their popular sovereignty was not being respected. To sum this all up, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, make a government legitimate.
Addressing my opponent’s case he said that strength is important because people will always choose the leader that will make them stronger. However if we look at the case of Adolf Hitler we find that though elected he severely weakened his people. Therefore the popular sovereignty does not always elect a leader that will make them strong.
In unity he said that as long as the majority is united everything is handy dandy. But what if the majority unite to suppress the minority as is seen in Zimbabwe where the majority blacks united to basically take away maximized rights from the whites. This not only was wrong under God but it severely weekend the country, and it has a hard time controlling its people. Therefore unity even under a majority can conflict your other values.
I agree with your point on controlling people. You said basically that as long as the people are getting what they want then the government will be in control. I don’t think you will ever meet a single sane person who will not want their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, therefore control of the people actually supports the negative, and individual rights.
Your argument on maximization of rights was rather circular reasoning and not really related with the case.
Addressing your first point you said in cross x America wasn’t a legitimate popular sovereignty yet it is the most prosperous country in the nation, or what about China which is clearly not popular sovereignty, yet is also is supremely prosperous. Therefore Governments not based on popular sovereignty are the two most prosperous in the world, and this negates your first point.
Addressing Greece, I assume you mean Athens which is the only Greek city state to have a democracy, as opposed to Sparta, which was a monarchy but respected its citizens individual rights, and ended up beating Athens.
Addressing 2: You never listed any countries that were legitimate popular sovereignties or how they traded properly with each other or why that was even important.
Addressing 3: a legitimate popular sovereignty can be a horrible system, take Hitler.
Addressing two: I assume all your proof for this was in your values section which I have already refuted.
Addressing three: You said that a legitimate popular sovereignty is the only system that can uphold unity, control to the people and maximization of rights, yet in cross X you said that individual rights could uphold it. You either negated yourself or really confused me.
My opponent said in Cross X that popular sovereignty only worked in a government that could not exist, however he was basing all his arguments off it. Therefore, since he can’t show you a government that is based on popular sovereignty, but I can show you many based on individual rights, I strongly urge you to negate this resolution. To remind you of my points, a government must be real and genuine to be legitimate, and legitimate countries are determined more by individual rights. Thank you. I hope I did not make Christian mad and I now stand ready to be torn apart by his expected, violent, cross examination.
