Charlie Smith
December 1, 2010
Negative Case
Introduction: Thomas Jefferson once said, “A democracy is nothing more than a mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” In a pure democracy, this is absolutely true. Lack of respect for the minority by a government can lead to an unbalanced and unfair government. This comes particularly from a disrespect of individual rights. For this reason, I am against this year’s resolution which states: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.
I agree with most of my opponents definitions; however, he does not give a united definition of individual rights. In this year’s resolution, individual rights are one concept, and for this reason I think it is important to define individual rights as a single definition. My definition for individual rights, therefore, is “The concept that each person is assumed to possess certain rights because they are human.” Because my opponent fails to define individual rights in the correct context, I will use my definition of individual rights for this debate.
Value: My value for this debate is morality. I value morality because a moral government does not overlook the minority, but it treats all of its citizens as equals. My criterion, or way of achieving my value, is individual rights. I chose individual rights to support morality because individual rights support the minority by treating everybody equally.
Contention 1: Popular Sovereignty is subjective
Popular sovereignty, which takes the peoples votes, is subjective to the majority’s votes. The majority can change with times or different government, making popular sovereignty a shifting standard. For this reason, I do not think that popular sovereignty is an adequate standard on which to judge a government’s legitimacy, so I urge you to look for a different standard than popular sovereignty for legitimizing a government.
Contention 2: Popular Sovereignty opposes morality
Popular sovereignty, as my opponent has said, is a government run by the people. Popular sovereignty disregards what the minority is saying. As Jefferson said, fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine in a democracy. So because morality in this context is treating every citizen as equals, popular sovereignty opposes morality by only focusing on the majority.
Contention 3: Individual Rights support morality.
Individual rights better supports morality than Popular Sovereignty because it looks out for the individuals, not the majority. Because individual rights, as my definition says, are assumed to the individual, individual rights do not have to rely on a majority vote. In addition, individual rights share very similar values morality. They both value justice, liberty, and freedom. As I have said, individual rights support morality because of the values of individual rights. Individual rights support equality, and so does morality. Whereas popular sovereignty looks for the largest group to rule over the entire group, individual rights says that everybody is equal, and thus should be treated the same way.
Rebuttal: My opponent says that it is only with his value of democracy that freedom, liberty, and unity can be achieved. I think that all three of these can be achieved in a different government style than a democracy, such as a monarchy. In a just monarchy, the people can enjoy freedom and liberty. Also, a monarchy can be united, such as in England.
My opponent also states in his second contention the example of the government taking away its citizens right to bear arms in an airport. This is not a good example of a government taking away its citizens individual rights, because, as my definition states, the right to bear arms in a public arena would not qualify as an individual right.
The last point of my opponent’s case that I want to address is his examples of democracies. He listed ancient Greece and modern-day America as his examples. These examples are not pure democracies. In the USA, the majority does not vote on individual issues, like a true democracy would. Also, we have installed the Electoral College, so that a direct majority does not always even determine the outcome of the vote for president. In ancient Greece, they had many similarities to the United States. They elected senators to represent them. This is not a pure democracy because they elected representatives. I am not saying that these governments are not legitimate, I am just saying that they are not pure democracies, and thus I challenge my opponent to deliver any historical pure democratic governmental examples because without any examples of a value, how can we know that a pure democracy can be legitimate, much less function as a steady government?
In conclusion, I urge the judges to vote a negative ballot because I have given some strong points about how popular sovereignty counters morality, while individual rights support morality. I have also ripped through some of my opponents fundamental points, which he will need to cover in his rebuttal. For these reasons, I strongly urge the judges to cast a negative ballot in this debate. Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination.
