When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.". Your opponent's style: avg highschooler

Good Morning, thank you fellow classmates,opponents, and ms donohue for the opportunity to be here today. We(daniel and kaniz) stand in support of the affirmative of the resolution; When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest. Governments have often justified controversial or immoral actions by claiming they were solely acting in the “national interest ” which for todays debate will be actions taken by a government to benefit its security, economic stability, political power, or global influence. Yet to truly measure how just a government is, we must look not at how well it protects itself, but at how well it protects people. The key phrase in understanding this resolution is “when forced to choose.” This phrase clearly shows that the resolution does not apply to everyday politics where governments can attempt to balance its own national interests with concern for human rights. Instead, it refers to rare, but often critical situations where governments cannot protect both at the same time. During these moral dilemmas the resolution clearly asks what a just government ought to do, not what is the most convenient or advantageous decision for the government. The key variable for this resolution is what is considered a just government. A just government is one that governs according to moral principles and respects the inherent dignity of all people. Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Locke introduced the idea of a social contract. They argued that governments gain their authority through the consent of the governed. Under this contract, the people would give up certain freedoms in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. If a government failed to protect these rights it would then be considered in violation of the contract and lose its legitimacy to govern. In today’s hyper globalized world, this idea of a social contract has evolved beyond only a government's responsibilities for its own citizens. After the atrocities of World War I and II, the larger international community of nations realised that unchecked pursuit of national interest had led to far too much suffering. As a result, the United Nations was founded and soon adopted the UDHR as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” This landmark document asserts that all human beings are “born free and equal in dignity and rights,” regardless of their nationality or status. As a result of this globally recognised declaration, governments are no longer judged exclusively on how they treat their own citizens, but also on whether they respect the universal rights of everybody regardless of their location. These universal rights have been defined by the UN as fundamental, inalienable rights inherent to all people, regardless of their nationality, sex, race, religion, or any other distinction.These rights include but are not limited to: freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality under the law, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial. These rights were outlined specifically to protect people during situations where governments may be tempted to prioritize their own interests over human dignity. Because of this, as the affirmative we will show why a truly just government cannot sacrifice these universal rights for national gain when the two conflict. Therefore, we offer the following two contentions in support of the resolution. Contention 1 : The legitimacy of a government depends on its ability to respect Human rights History has shown that nations will often commit terrible injustices, justifying them in the name of national security or prosperity. Nazi Germany attempted to justify its actions during the holocaust by framing them as vital to the nation's continued existence. Similarly, apartheid South Africa defended its policies of racial segregation and discrimination as methods to maintain government stability. In both examples national interest was used as cover for systematic violations of human rights and dignity. Therefore, it is clear that when national interest is pursued at the expense of human rights, governments forfeit their moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world and lose their claim of being just. Contention 2 Prioritizing rights in regard to foreign policy reduces the threat of violence and creates a more peaceful and stable world The threat of violence is always revolutionary in manner, threatening to overthrow the established order and those it protects. This violence is harmful to a stable government because it threatens the rights of individuals to live and make their own decisions. This leads to fear within the populace and a continued cycle of violent threats.For instance people whose Human dignity is not being respected will assuredly rebel against the unjust government they were suffering under, oftentimes with violent methods. Thus prioritizing HR from the start respects the self value of individuals and reduces the chance of violent uprising. For instance, long term oppression under absolute monarchs led the third estate in France to launch the french revolution as a way of returning their dignity and rights. However if a document such as the later Napoleonic code had been implemented the revolution might not have gotten the support it needed.

Good morning everyone. Look, Daniel and Kaniz paint a pretty picture, but they're living in a fantasy world where governments can just ignore reality and somehow everything works out fine. Let me be real with you - their whole argument falls apart the moment you ask one simple question: what happens when prioritizing "universal human rights" gets your own citizens killed? Take their Holocaust example. They conveniently ignore that it was *national interest* - specifically Britain and America's national security concerns about Nazi expansion - that actually stopped the genocide. If those countries had followed Daniel and Kaniz's logic and focused on abstract universal rights instead of their own strategic interests, they never would have built the military power needed to defeat Hitler. The Jews were saved by countries acting in their own national interest, not by governments sacrificing themselves for moral principles.America spent over 40% of its entire economy on defense during WWII [1] - that's massive national self-interest, not some noble human rights crusade. They built the military machine that actually ended the Holocaust because they feared for their own survival, not because they cared about abstract universal principles. And their French Revolution example? That's exactly backwards! The revolution was a bloodbath that killed thousands of innocent people and led to the Terror. When governments prioritize ideology over stability, you get chaos and mass murder. Napoleon's later success came from focusing on French national interests - building strong institutions, expanding French power, creating economic stability for French citizens. Here's the brutal truth they won't admit: every time a government sacrifices its own people's security for "universal principles," those same people suffer and die. Rwanda happened because the international community was too busy worrying about universal human rights to let any country act decisively in their national interest to stop the genocide. A truly just government protects the people who actually gave it power - its own citizens. That's not selfish, that's the basic social contract. You can't save the world if you can't even protect your own backyard.