Christian’s Neg Case against Alex Hendrix Thomas Jefferson once said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This quote helps us to understand that popular sovereignty isn’t necessarily the best choice for determining a government’s legitimacy. I will argue for individual rights rather than popular sovereignty.
Today, we are discussing a resolution that wants us to agree with popular sovereignty. However, in this case, I will present several evidences why we shouldn’t affirm the resolution, but rather negate the resolution. I will repeat the resolution for memory’s sake: A government's legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights. However, before I begin, let me define my terms that I will use in this debate.
ValuesMy values are privacy, liberty, and morality. I will justify these values in my contentions. Even though I don’t have hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, the fear of long words, I will define these values such that my opponent and you, the judge, won’t get befuddled with my unintelligible conversation. In other words, to be clearly understood, I will define my values.
Privacy: the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people
Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior (keep in mind that morality comes from God)
All definitions were taken from the New Oxford American Dictionary.
(If opponent agrees with value cross-x questions...)
My opponent himself says that morality should be upheld, a task that popular sovereignty cannot accomplish since the decisions for OTHER people are made by the people as a whole. He also enjoys liberty. This is almost impossible in popular sovereignty because it usually degrades into an individual rights devourer.
Now, on to my contentions...
Contentions- Popular Sovereignty doesn’t uphold the rights of the individuals that make up the nation.
- This system tends to deteriorate into a mindless eating machine so to speak, because people’s decisions don’t really affect themselves.
- In popular sovereignty, if I can convince enough people that my opponent should be executed because, “He (or she) could be a terrorist,” then my opponent could be legally executed. This would never occur in a system where individual rights is upheld.
Morality, liberty, and privacy constitute a legitimate government.
For example in North Korea, their government isn’t legitimate because the people can’t have any contact with the outer world (liberty and morality), the Christians are killed (privacy, liberty and morality), and their rights are trampled (privacy). Virtually every government can be evaluated by this standard.Individual rights is the best system to uphold morality, liberty, and privacy.
Our country was based on individual rights and for most of its history has upheld morality, liberty, and privacy. It will remain a legitimate government until it starts to overstep these bounds.
My opponent may say (or might have already said) that some people do crazy things, yet still have to have a trial in the name of individual rights. I agree. Each person should be treated fairly in the justice system.
This is why I ask the judge to negate the resolution.RebuttalFirst, let’s deal with Alex’s value of Equality and his first contention...
You said this in your description and justification of your value, “A government that ensures equality to its 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.” (typo omitted)
Then, you go on to say this in your first contention, “Everyone has different views of basic rights, such as: life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.”
So, therefore based on your statements, we should value the equality of people on something that we don't agree upon, something that "everyone has different views on." This cannot possibly occur. My opponent’s argument for one of his values doesn’t work. In cross-x, however, my opponent says that people generally agree on some rights.
Moving on to his next contention… How does the government having control over its people go against my viewpoint? It doesn’t. Individual rights systems have governments that have general control over its people.
In his third point, he says that a government must uphold individual’s rights. A government can’t uphold individual’s rights if the masses don’t think for example that Johnny should be alive. This isn’t just theoretical either. In the French Revolution when the aristocracy was destroyed, popular sovereignty was unofficially adopted for a period of time. This nice and happy popular sovereignty was a majority of revolutionaries that chopped the heads off of their former aristocracy members, brought down the government, and caused widespread destruction and chaos.
He also says that if the government upholds individual’s basic rights, than it is legitimate. If we go along with his point, then an individual rights system is a perfectly legitimate government.
In summary, my contentions were as follows. Popular Sovereignty doesn’t uphold the rights of the individuals that make up the nation. Morality, liberty, and privacy constitute a legitimate government. Individual rights is the best system to uphold morality, liberty, and privacy.
Therefore, to the judge, in light of the mass of evidence against popular sovereignty, I strongly advise you to negate the resolution.
