The Instigator
carpediem
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Sept/Oct LD Resolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
carpediem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,789 times Debate No: 25779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

carpediem

Con

September/October resolution for Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Resolved: "The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens."

Rules:

(1) Rounds structured in typical LD format.

a. First round is aff constructive; it is not an acceptance round.
b. Second round is neg constructive and rebuttal as well as aff rebuttal.
c. Third round is for rebuttals. No new arguments may be submitted in the final round.

(2) Forfeit counts as an automatic loss, as does trolling.

Gratia adversario meo!
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

Aff constructive

Value: governmental legitimacy : The legitimacy of a government in which deserves the right to govern under its own statues it was created by.

Criterion: Governmental obligations / The constitution.

Key terms :

Criminal: A person who has committed a crime.

Observation 1 : For the US to maintain a legitimate government, they must uphold the bill of rights along with the rest of the constitution if it infringes on the constitution it is acting in an illegitimate way and acting against their own laws making the government itself illegitimate.

Observation 2: Under the Geneva convention POW"s are assured due process along with not being taken at all. It is not allowed to take POW"s in the Geneva Convention.

Observation 3: The US is not under any state of war with any country.

Observation 4: terrorists are criminals.

Contention 1: For criminals of the US the constitution gives due process for, terrorist are pretty much criminals and criminals under that jurisdiction therefore should be allowed due process. Under the own statues of the US the constitution must be upheld if not they break their own laws. As long as the US acts in a manner not allowing terrorist due process they are acting as an illegitimate government.

Contention 2: Some people captured are innocent and never given a trial, such examples are events at Guantanamo bay; however now we just shoot missiles at them.

http://rense.com... (Worth looking up for you guys).

Contentions 3: If contention 1 and 2 are true 3 must be true, The US as of now is no longer a legitimate government , until they affirm the resolution. Therefore the judge must flow my side.

I didn"t flesh for a reason, I do not want people taking this and just copying and pasting.
Use what you can out of it but do the work yourself.
Debate Round No. 1
carpediem

Con

Thank you, joshuaXlawyer for accepting this debate.

For signposting purposes, I will begin by stating my constructive speech and moving on to deconstruct my opponent’s arguments.

I negate the resolution, “Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.”


The important term of this debate is,

  1. Terrorism, from the UN General Assembly Resolution: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.


The value for this debate is the pursuit of natural rights. This phrase refers to the natural rights of those in a particular country, in this case, as the resolution suggests, the citizens of theUnited States. Natural rights, in their most basic form, consist of the right to life, liberty, and property. When a person or a group of people attempts to infringe upon those most basic rights, it is the duty and essential purpose of the government to protect their citizens. If it has failed to effectively perform this role, then the government has not fulfilled its function. Furthermore, the pursuit of natural rights is the most important concept in this debate because if a person is stripped of these intrinsic rights he is denied an essential quality of life, and perhaps life itself.


Consequently, the value criterion for this debate is national security. National security supports natural rights by countering its obstacles. As previously stated, a person’s quality of life is obsolete without these. Because it is not in the power of any one individual to protect himself against a threat of such caliber as a terroristic threat, it is necessary for the government to assume its duty of national security in the interest of its citizens and of itself; for no government can exist without its people.


Contention 1: The Lockean Prerogative

Though John Locke did not support government intervention, he did believe that if it had a role to play in society, it was to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Therefore in times of “sudden and extreme occurrences,” government or executives have the right to exercise powers that may not be accounted for within the confines of the law in order to protect the public. While mere security may not be a valid end to place next to those of justice, individual rights, etc., the pursuit of natural rights is, because without it, human interests are obsolete. “Rather,” as states the Cram Analysis (undated), “security and order are needed in an instrumental sense to enable individuals to pursue autonomous life plans or to safeguard natural rights.” Those who challenge the Lockean Prerogative, do so because as always, when granting any sort of prerogative to a governing body, it is necessary to yield some rights, the social contract as an example. This leads me to my second contention.


Contention 2:
The forfeiture of rights as justified by the social contract.

The social contract theory according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is, “the view that a person’s moral obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.” Locke’s social contract, in particular, expresses the idea that because we cannot live in the state of nature, we must enter into a tacit civil agreement that governs our actions. Essentially, all our rights are held intact, however, once we have committed an injustice, some of those rights are necessarily taken away. That is, if I commit a murder, I am subject to be held by the law and tried for my crime, thus have I forfeited the right to autonomy. In the scenario of Locke’s Prerogative, it is not the citizens who concede some of their rights for the common good, but the terrorist, because it is the terrorist who has committed the crime and thus they necessarily forfeit their rights. Because they have forfeited these rights, the government of the people against whom these crimes have been committed, has not only the right to apportion them their due, but the obligation to do so in a way that will ensure the protection of their citizens, as shown in the Lockean Prerogative.

While due process requirements tolerate some guilty citizens getting off to help ensure that no innocent citizen is deprived of life, liberty, property, etc., it is no required to do so for foreigners because of the basic and foremost need to preserve the life, liberty, and property of citizens. It is important to remember that government’s most fundamental purpose is to protect its citizens. If it does not take the measures necessary to ensure this, it has failed.


I will now move on to deconstruct my opponent’s case.

The affirmative case can essentially be summed up in observation 1, this is what I will quote and clash with; you may cross-apply this rebuttal with the rest of his arguments. Also, I may note for the sake of clarity, my opponent’s second, third, and fourth observations I can essentially agree with.


Rebuttal and Value Clash

My opponent’s case revolves around the idea that the statutes under which a given government was created should be maintained at any cost, whether or not those statutes are unjust, or compromise the safety of its own citizens.

“For the US to maintain a legitimate government, they must uphold the bill of rights along with the rest of the constitution if it infringes on the constitution it is acting in an illegitimate way and acting against their own laws making the government itself illegitimate.”

There are several problems with this analysis. Firstly, the statutes upon which a country was built have the ability to be wrong, unjust, and not what should or ought to be done. The affirmative enters the debate with a value of governmental legitimacy, and consequently the assumption that acting outside of the statutes to which he refers creates an illegitimate government. It is wrong to assume that government cannot act outside of these boundaries, for if such a boundary exists that is unjust, it would indeed be wrong not to break it. Therefore, government does have such a right, and upon exercising it, retains legitimacy. Secondly, the affirmative offers no real justification for why his value would affirm the resolution. He tries to prove that if we negate, the U.S. is an illegitimate state, but if this is true then what he is really proving is that we must, not that we ought. Simply put, my opponent’s value is not fitting to the resolution at all. Ought, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is defined as “obligation.” What my opponent has only so far proved is that affirming the resolution is what the U.S. must do in order to exist. My opponent seems to be circumventing the resolution’s purpose.

What my opponent must prove to affirm the resolution is that the “United States ‘ought’ to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.” My case has clearly negated this resolution, in defining the fundamental purpose of government, to protect the natural rights of their citizens. A view of government is where my opponent and I fundamentally disagree. In the affirmative world, government seems to be an unyielding power that, once it has in place a set of arbitrary rules and laws, cannot step out of them. In the negative world, however, government has a singular role: to protect the natural rights of its citizens. If it does not achieve that goal, it is useless, and in affirming this resolution, that individual autonomy of citizens is threatened.

joshuaXlawyer

Pro

I will first attack my opponents case:

My opponents value is natural rights or pursuit of said rights. His value flows toward my side.

Points:

1. The natural rights of the United States is bound up in the bill of rights. However my opponent advocates a policy of "do as I say not as I do". Meaning infringing on your own believed natural rights which a person obtains from birth which are the basis of your country, one must or ought to up hold them.

2.The part of his case bothers me. "This phrase refers to the natural rights of those in a particular country" this makes natural rights seem like they are not universal when they are. Example, the USA believes every person has the right to life and liberty. We are taught that, and when we see another country acting against other people's liberty outside of the country we are outraged, we consider it immoral or wrong. Why? The idea of natural rights is you believe they are universal.

3. My opponent assumes the USA can't protect themselves and uphold the constitution and Geneva convention.

His criterion national security.

points:

1. Still assumes the US can't protect itself and uphold is ideals and obligations.

Contention 1:

1: John locke, mark argument as some what irrelevant, as my opponent still believes that we can't protect ourselves and uphold natural rights aka the constitutions for terrorists. Lockes idea can be upheld with due process for terrorists.

Contention 2:

1: Again terrorists are the same as criminals and deserve due process under the constitution the natural rights of the USA.

All in all my opponent has explained that terrorists are an immediate threat that cannot be provided natural rights and due process because.... Well that's the thing he assumes they are such a threat that even captured and put to trial they will kill everyone Oh no scary scary terrorist in shackles and behind bars is going to kill everyone. They won't its obscured to think this way. When we capture terrorist and provide due process which we believe is a birth right we are not endangering the country.

My defense.

My opponents attacks are not very organized in clear points so I will pick out things and defend.

My value is not bound to morality, and if a government is built on immoral laws or unjust laws as long as it maintains them it is acting in a legitimate way. My opponent arguing morality is irrelevant because a system like government is usually made up of people who have morals. Usually governments are somewhat made in a moral way, however if they are not that does not make the government illegitimate. What makes it illegitimate is if it does not follow its own status or laws. Morality being subjective to people one might think rape is ok therefore its moral. So he makes a government with a constitution all rape is legal. Then its legitimate as long as it upholds that ideal.

"The affirmative enters the debate with a value of governmental legitimacy, and consequently the assumption that acting outside of the statutes to which he refers creates an illegitimate government. It is wrong to assume that government cannot act outside of these boundaries, for if such a boundary exists that is unjust, it would indeed be wrong not to break it. Therefore, government does have such a right, and upon exercising it, retains legitimacy."

---A government is illegitimate if it acts outside the restrictions its made for itself. That's just common sense, If I go and sign a contract not to talk to people, but I do anyway its usually a crime or wrong to do so. This is the US it was built with restrictions on each branch in mind.

The whole must and ought argument is semantics and pisses me off, For one if we must do this to be a legitimate government don't you think we should or ought to achieve it? yes? good thanks for wasting time.

Finally I disagree with my opponent that the social contract can be applied to my government as well, the only difference my opponent believes a government can be evil immoral thing which it can't under what my opponents locke. A government is define as a place out the state of nature in which laws make up and restrict citizens into a contract to bind some natural rights to remain safe. However I argue that a government built on a statue like the US that has the constitution and must uphold its essential building block in which it was made. This is the US we are talking about I prefer my opponent stay in such realm.
Debate Round No. 2
carpediem

Con

Deconstruction


Point one (points 1, 2, and 3 presumably value clash)


**Note: Point one was indiscernible and a syntactic hell. Please disregard this point.



Point two


“The part of his case bothers me…this makes natural rights seem like they are not universal when they are.”


I am not disputing that natural rights are universal. They are. Remember, however that the United States is the agent in this resolution. Regardless of whether or not natural rights are universal, it is not the responsibility of the United States government to make sure that everyone in the entire world is receiving justice. It’s not even its responsibility to give justice to those who come into its jurisdiction providing they are not citizens. This is because the government has one absolute purpose only, being to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Surprisingly, my opponent has not contested this within the whole of our debate, nor has he addressed it. Therefore, please flow this concept of the purpose of government through the round.


Point three and the Value Criterion Clash


“My opponent assumes the USA can't protect themselves and uphold the constitution and Geneva convention.”


My opponent misunderstands the argument. United States can protect itself while upholding the constitution, but that doesn’t mean it should, nor does it mean that while doing so it does not take some risk of national security. As I mentioned in my rebuttal to “point two,” government has only one purpose that is absolutely justified. This purpose is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Because it is obsolete without its citizens, the government must strain to protect that which constitutes it, the citizens. If it has not done that, it has failed. A person accused of terrorism is the threat of a terroristic action, and must be treated as such in order to ensure national security. Furthermore, because the government of the United States is not obligated to ensure the rights of a non-citizen, the negation of this resolution is permissible.


Contention One


“John locke, mark argument as some what irrelevant, as my opponent still believes that we can't protect ourselves and uphold natural rights aka the constitutions for terrorists. Lockes idea can be upheld with due process for terrorists.”


This rebuttal is absurd. Firstly, it offers no explanation whatsoever for the statements it provides. My opponent wishes you to accept his rebuttal without any justification for its assertion. Please disregard this rebuttal. Secondly, I would simply like to make it clear that Locke’s argument which I have explained predominantly in the first contention of my constructive case, entirely upholds my argument. Locke argues that the one role of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. This, for obvious reasons, is not irrelevant to my case.


Contention two


“Well that's the thing he assumes they are such a threat that even captured and put to trial they will kill everyone Oh no scary scary terrorist in shackles and behind bars is going to kill everyone. They won't its obscured to think this way.”


I’ve already addressed this. As I stated before, a person accused of terrorism is the threat of a terroristic action, and must be treated as such in order to ensure national security. Furthermore, because the government of the United States is not obligated to ensure the rights of a non-citizen, the negation of this resolution is permissible.


Defense


Firstly, my opponent begins by arguing the subjectivity of morality in order to prove the legitimacy of any given government action. This is simply untrue. Nothing is right just because one person or country says it is. Furthermore, this contradicts my opponent’s assertion in his “point two rebuttal” that natural rights are universal. If a government can make it constitutional that all rape is legal, then they can also decree that none of their citizens have natural rights. Because his ideas contradict each other, neither can stand.


Secondly, my opponent again argues governmental legitimacy.


“A government is illegitimate if it acts outside the restrictions its made for itself. That's just common sense, If I go and sign a contract not to talk to people, but I do anyway its usually a crime or wrong to do so. This is the US it was built with restrictions on each branch in mind.”


Continuing my opponent’s comparison of a contract, I would like to point out the flaw in this argument. If I break a contract I have made with someone, that does not make me illegitimate. The government that acts outside of the restrictions it has made for itself has broken a contract, but still is a government, just as a person is still a person after having broken that same contract.


Thirdly,


“For one if we must do this to be a legitimate government don't you think we should or ought to achieve it?”


This argument is not essential to my case, however, to answer my opponent’s query, depending on how you define “ought” this point is relevant. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, for example, defines it as a moral obligation. It should be fairly obvious to my opponent that while I must become a cannibal to survive on a desert island, perhaps I should not if morality dictates it. At any rate, I need not pursue this topic to negate the resolution. Moreover, while this was a mere weakness in his value, my opponent has others that I will address later.


Lastly,


“I disagree with my opponent that the social contract can be applied to my government as well, the only difference my opponent believes a government can be evil immoral thing which it can't under what my opponents locke.”


What opponent fails to understand is that his own case is based entirely upon a social contract that includes the government; namely, the constitution, which is a social contract with the people. Additionally, I have never argued that a government can be a “evil, immoral thing.” My only argument was that the government has a role of safeguarding the natural rights of its citizens, and it ought not go further in its action than fulfilling that purpose, a purpose that Locke upholds. Where I clash with my opponent’s social contract argument (constitutionality) is that the building blocks upon which a country is built may not necessarily be right, in this case, they may compromise the safety of its citizens. This being the case, it is wrong for the government not to step outside these bounds, for if it does not, it jeopardizes the safety of its citizens, its one purpose. And without achieving this one purpose, the government becomes non-existent, for a government is nothing without the people that comprise it. Therefore if the resolution is not negated, government loses its legitimacy.


Voting Issues



  1. I defeated my opponent’s point that the government becomes illegitimate when stepping outside of the bounds of its constitution fully justified why a government is unable to be legitimate if the resolution is affirmed. Because his entire case revolves around the point, his case necessarily falls.

  2. My opponent never directly addressed one of the most essential points to my debate which is the point on the limited responsibility of the government. Please flow this point through the debate.

  3. Lastly, and most importantly, a word on the value clash. While I have clearly upheld my value and explained why it is the most important concept in this debate. With his value, however, my opponent has done no such thing. He has not explained why “governmental legitimacy” is what we should value above all else in this debate. And in fact, it should not be. A value must be a legitimate end in and of itself; justice, for example is something that should be achieved for its own sake. Governmental legitimacy does not even have the ability to be achieved for its own sake and therefore cannot be a valid value in this debate. It simply does not challenge the intrinsic virtue of natural rights and the pursuit of those rights.



joshuaXlawyer

Pro

My attack:

Point 2 :

My opponent says the that the whole idea of a government is to protect its citizens, I have no reason to contest this. However, my opponent admits that the US can protect its citizens and give due process. This is the point of my argument that we have an obligation to give due process due to the Constitution. For a government to remain legitimate it must uphold its laws, its own restrictions. Or it is no long a legitimate government. Even thought these terrorists are not citizens we still have the obligation. Why? Because under the Geneva convention it is illegal for a government to take POW's. One might say oh they are not POW's they are more like criminals. Foreign criminals are given due process in the US all the time or deported to their own country for it. If this is the case why are terrorists different? The US is acting in a illegitimate way when it allows due process for certain foreign criminals and kills or detains them without due process. If terrorists were an extreme threat in which kill or be killed that's called self defense but that's not the case. If we capture a terrorist they deserve due process. My opponents idea is kill or we die, not the case therefore we ought to remain legitimate and give them due process.

3. No my opponent misunderstands what I am trying to say, a government must uphold its own tapestry, building blocks in which it was made to remain legitimate. What "risk" am I putting citizens through by giving capture terrorists due process? Exactly.

" A person accused of terrorism is the threat of a terroristic action, and must be treated as such in order to ensure national security. Furthermore, because the government of the United States is not obligated to ensure the rights of a non-citizen, the negation of this resolution is permissible."

Refer back to first attack.

"Because under the Geneva convention it is illegal for a government to take POW's. One might say oh they are not POW's they are more like criminals. Foreign criminals are given due process in the US all the time or deported to their own country for it. If this is the case why are terrorists different? The US is acting in a illegitimate way when it allows due process for certain foreign criminals and kills or detains them without due process. If terrorists were an extreme threat in which kill or be killed that's called self defense but that's not the case. If we capture a terrorist they deserve due process."

Contention 1:

Argue that my point was Locke's contract is still upheld even if we give due process to terrorist, citizens are protected and the terrorists have due process. Harm to citizens: zero.

Contention 2 :

Again refer to value points 2 and 3. And yeah terrorist should be treated like criminals cause they are you already agreed to that in my observations. However, criminals get due process under the constitution. We must follow the Constitution to remain legitimate.

Defense:

Firstly:
No my opponent you misunderstood, in my example this government could have not believed in natural rights. Doesn't matter, morality is determined by the person what this fake government believes is right is right to them. But maybe the example was to extreme instead of rape lets say everyone can only speak in song. The idea of the example was to explain that unjust governments don't really exist cause each society believes differently. The only thing that mattered is if they upheld their own restrictions. The only government that can uphold both natural rights and government legitimacy is the US,UK, any country that has natural rights. in this debate we are looking at the US. The example, again was only to explain that in my case it doesn't matter if they uphold natural rights however in this resolution you can uphold both.

Secondly:

In a government if you break the rules of itself to remain that government your illegitimate.

thirdly: dropped.

Lastly: my citizens by giving confined criminals due process, my opponent still never gave this immediate danger that terrorist have in jail or every where they go apparently, to put them in danger my cases doesn't even break his contract and upholds mine. He also argue the constitution of other governments may not be right, we are not talking about other governments. Other governments my not uphold locke but they do uphold mine. I still achieve my purpose.

Voters:

1. Terrorists are criminals, under the US constitution they deserve due process, therefore to remain legitimate in my case they ought or must up hold it.

2. My case upholds his as well as long as the US is concerned.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
It really doesn't matter. There is nothing I hate more than a source debate.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 4 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
mine are all from google definitons
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
Here are the sources and citations for my round two constructive. I didn't have enough character space to fit them in the round.

"The Extraconstitutionality of Lockean Prerogative." The Extraconstitutionality of Lockean Prerogative. Brown University, n.d. Web. <www.brown.edu/Research/ppw/Corbett.doc>.

"Social Contract Theory." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.iep.utm.edu...;.

Meese, Edwin, III, ed. "Amendment V." The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005. 336-40. Print.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 4 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Im out of high school and no longer debate any more (Poor me) because trust me I would still be doing turnys. Sadly why oh why didn't this topic come sooner. I would have loved to debate it in high school, If you go to any turnys in NC I might see you but I doubt it. Ill be judging stuff, congressional debate and LD debate.Oh well.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
I already wrote my aff case, and my debate team is in West Virginia, so we don't really come into the district of the Texas Forensic Association (TFA, right?) So don't worry about it :)
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
See the only reason I hesitate to go aff here is because I don't like leaking out my affs .-. I have so many negs it doesn't matter too much, but I don't have as many affs so if I leak it out, especially if you do TFA, then you'll probably see me and take a free win from being prepped out .-.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Gaaaah.......tempting....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
carpediemjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: even. Spelling and grammar: Pro routinely lacked capitalization, grammar, orthographical rules, spelling, etc. Arguments: Pro had a very weak opening case that resembled more of a PF style of debate. Con had a very strong opening case with a solid philosophical base, which she used to her advantage during the analysis of the debate. Con clearly won the value clash between natural rights and governmental legitimacy. Source: LD should not have sources, and this debate didn't.