Wonho Rhee Nationals 2011 LD Negative Case Opening: Government loses its claim to legitimacy when it fails to fulfill

its obligations. Because I agree with this quote by Martin Gross, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Social Science at New York University, I negate the resolution that, when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest. Value: My position upholds the value of societal welfare. Societal welfare is what allows a community of people to maintain and/or improve its well-being. Society must be maintained and improved for the continued development of civilization. Every society is responsible only to its own members. Therefore, if each society does its part to maximize societal welfare by negating the resolution, then the prioritized national interests will ultimately lead to a world of societies that take care of their citizens and uphold their rights anyway. Thus it is more logical to negate than to affirm, because negating leads to the best of both worlds while affirming would damage a governments own citizens by sacrificing the national interest for the sake of universal human rights. Criterion: The value of societal welfare is met by the criterion of governmental legitimacy. Governmental legitimacy is the status conferred to a government by its people that affirm its appropriate retention and usage of power. In other words, a government has legitimacy if its people approve of its right to rule. Without governmental legitimacy, societal welfare is impossible to achieve because the people will naturally revolt against a government it deems unjust and improvident. On the other hand, a legitimate government is primarily concerned with protecting its own citizens rights, hence it prioritizes its national interest to build a better society. Governmental legitimacy must be respected by nations worldwide to not disrupt the societal welfare that each just government seeks. Contentions: My first and only contention is that a just government should always put its citizens first. Subpoint a: The social contract links a government to only its people. Societies of humans form governments for protection. The state of nature that humans would be in without governments would be brutal and senseless because people are inherently selfish. Hence the social contract is metaphorically signed to link a government to its people: a government preserves the rights of its citizens by providing a safe society under its rule, while the citizens sometimes give up their rights to help their government and facilitate the power it needs to operate. A legitimate governments only responsibility is therefore only to its people, and it is neither immoral nor unjust for it to put other nations citizens second. In fact, if we were to affirm and let a government sacrifice national interest, which by definition is for the good of its people, then that government would be acting illegitimately because it is not doing its best to act on the will of its people or preserve its peoples rights. The resolution directly pits universal human rights versus national interest. A nation that fulfills its just obligation to look out for the interest of its people is legitimate, unlike one that hurts its own interest to care for the citizens of a far-off country. It is nonsensical to expect Greece, a country ridden with

Wonho Rhee a failed economy, to put plans to aid tortured prisoners in Russia before plans to improve its own societal welfare. Subpoint b: Prioritizing universal human rights is both nebulous and impractical. Though the modern governments of the world agree that universal human rights exist, and though I accept the list of universal human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put forth by the U.N., the problem remains that not a single country in the world tries to uphold all of these rights or wants to do so. Nearly every country in the world has joined the U.N., but the motivation for joining the giant has been to look good and stay politically safe rather than conform to a grand set of rules. The U.S. defies the U.N. at times, for instance, because it is a superpower that is not likely to receive heavy consequences for dissent and because it believes in its own governmental legitimacy to make its own choices for the societal welfare of its people. Every country has its own personal set of rights that dont perfectly coincide with the U.N.s, rendering U.N. criticism powerless most of the time. Consider the Cold War, when Americans viewed communism as pure evil. During this time period, the U.S. fought a war in Vietnam for decades. The massive number of U.S. troops that were committed to the war failed to bring about victory because the North Vietnamese never fought directly. The U.S. had to withdraw from the war, and the consequences remain today that Vietnam is still Communist and is known for serious violations of human rights. Americans fought for capitalism and democracy and tried to preserve the rights of the South Vietnamese by eliminating a Communist government, and miserably failed. In the future, just governments should realize that instead of championing lofty, so-called universal human rights, they should recognize the legitimacy of other nations with different values and worry about their own citizens societal welfare first. Taking America as an example, Barack Obama should primarily help the unemployed and impoverished in the U.S., a more demanding and realistic plan than making Vietnam a democratic nation. Every leader should legitimately rule for the good of his/her people; after all, who is to say that a government is being just and upholding human rights better than its own people? If governments legitimacy is not interfered with, then national interests can be freely pursued. In the end, negating like this will produce a world with more societal welfare and human rights in each nation rather than a world where universal human rights universally exist nowhere because countries with differing opinions on what those rights actually are have drained their resources fighting each other. I therefore urge a negative ballot. Now moving on to my opponents case Definitions: I agree with the definitions of key terms in the resolution provided by my opponent. OR Unlike my opponent, the following are my definitions of key terms in the resolution. forceddue to an emergency or necessity (Collins English Dictionary, 2009) human rightsfreedom from arbitrary interference or restriction by governments (The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 2005) universal human rightsthose human rights for all peoples and all nations including life, liberty, property, etc. (UDHR, 1948) The UDHR is the global declaration by the U.N. that all governments should have the declared rights; it was initially signed in 1948

Wonho Rhee with 48 in favor, 0 against, and 8 abstentions, and now the U.N. includes 192 of the 194/195 countries of the world. national interestany matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy, which may intrude on constitutional rights (Wests Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008) govts violate UHR on regular basis, when is this bad?

Wonho Rhee Nationals 2011 LD Negative Case Opening: Government loses its claim to legitimacy when it fails to fulfill its obligations. Because I agree with this quote by Martin Gross, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Social Science at New York University, I negate the resolution that, when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest. Value: My position upholds the value of societal welfare. The well-being of a community should be maintained and improved for the continued existence of humanity. Since every society is responsible only to its own members, societal welfare is the most logical value that governments can achieve. Criterion: The value of societal welfare is met by the criterion of governmental legitimacy. Governmental legitimacy is the status conferred to a government by its people that affirm its appropriate retention and usage of power. In other words, a government has legitimacy if its people approve of its right to rule. A legitimate government prioritizes its national interest to build a better society in which citizens have their rights protected. Governmental legitimacy must be respected by nations worldwide to not disrupt the societal welfare that each just government seeks. Contentions: My first and only contention is that a just government should always put its citizens first. Subpoint a: The social contract links a government to only its people. Societies of humans form governments for protection. The state of nature that humans would be in without governments would be brutal and chaotic because people are inherently selfish. Hence the social contract is metaphorically signed to link a government to its people: a government preserves the rights of its citizens by providing a safe society under its rule, while the citizens sometimes give up their rights to help their government and facilitate the power it needs to operate. It is neither immoral nor unjust for it to put other nations citizens second. In fact, if we were to affirm and let a government sacrifice national interest, which by definition is for the good of its people, then that government would be acting illegitimately because it is not doing its best to act on the will of its people or to preserve its peoples rights. The resolution directly pits universal human rights versus national interest. A nation that fulfills its just obligation to its people is legitimate, unlike one that hurts its own interest to care for the citizens of a far-off country. It is nonsensical to expect Greece, a country ridden with a failed economy, to put plans to aid tortured prisoners in Russia before plans to improve its own societal welfare. Subpoint b: Prioritizing universal human rights is rhetorical and impractical. Though the modern governments of the world agree that universal human rights exist, and though I accept the list of universal human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put forth by the U.N., the problem remains that not a single country in the world tries to uphold all of these rights or wants to do so. Nearly every country in the world has joined the U.N., but the motivation for joining this giant has been to stay politically safe rather than to conform to a grand set of rules. The U.S. defies

Wonho Rhee the U.N. at times, for instance, because it is a superpower that is not likely to receive heavy consequences for dissent and because it believes in its governmental legitimacy to make its own choices for the societal welfare of its people. So while it sounds good to prioritize human rights, the desire to actually do so is really just rhetoric and does not form into action. Regarding practically, consider U.S. involvement in Vietnam during the Cold War. The massive number of U.S. troops that were committed to the war failed to bring about victory. The U.S. had to withdraw from the war, and the consequences remain today that Vietnam is still Communist and is known for serious violations of human rights. Americans fought for capitalism and democracy and tried to preserve the rights of the South Vietnamese by eliminating a Communist government, and miserably failed. Learning from this example, just governments should realize that instead of championing lofty, universal human rights, they should recognize the legitimacy of other nations with different values and worry about their own citizens societal welfare first. This is a more concrete and realistic goal than draining ones resources and hurting ones people fighting for rights in some far-off land. I therefore urge a negative ballot. Now moving on to my opponents case Governments enter into social contracts of sorts with other entities, territories, for example. We allow Puerto Rico various privileges. Dont we have an obligation to those people? We also have agreements with other nations and we have a moral obligation to fulfill those contracts. You say above that a governments only responsibility is to its citizens, but we can have responsibilities to both our people and those we have promised things to. (I think you need to use primary or chief instead of only when modifying obligation.) Was the failure of Viet Nam due to our withdrawal? If we stayed and diligently continued to pursue protection of rights would there be a different outcome? I, the affirmative, contend that it was the selfish prioritization of national interest, or more likely, political motivations, that caused us to abandon a worthy cause. The human rights violations today are a result of our lack of resolve in the 70s. Can putting national interest first be impractical? I, the affirmative, argue that the answer is a resounding yes. This sort of policy leads to alienation / isolation. It not only creates a chasm between such nationalist state a potential trading partners and allies, but it is antagonistic toward existing partners. When a country in the negative world ignores the plight of another country in need, countries resent our apathy and respond in the form of severed commerce and transportation and immigration policies. govt's take away rights on regular basis, who can decide when this is bad?