S.H.

I stand in firm negation of the resolution which states: That Australian and New Zealand protectorates should given independence under an agreement of free association, for three main reasons

1. Injurious consequences of separation

2. The definition of free association

3. American influence

Noun

Plural noun: protectorates:

A state that is controlled and protected by another.

Free association:

Is a technique used in psychoanalysis (and also in psychodynamic theory) which was originally devised by Sigmund Freud out of the hypnotic method of his mentor and coworker, Josef Breuer.

Based on the above definitions this debate has already been won.  The consequences of separation would be catastrophic, even with free association (an inherently flawed system).  The Cook Islands, Niue, the Tokelau Islands, and the Ross dependency would lose their foothold from the power of New Zealand. This is injurious through two sub contentions.

A.  The flawed system of free association.

-  This system proposes that the underling would express his/her feelings about policies and not parrot those of their employer. This technique is used in businesses in order to get employees or subject to express their true emotions instead of suppressing them, which could unfortunately lead to un-diplomatic communications and trade between these nations, which would devastate the smaller states.

B.  The effects of secession

-  Just like when the south sought to secede from the north, the conflicts and tough feelings that will be created will indubitably cause a conflict that would devastate local and nation communities, and we cannot allow these nation to have that violent impact on anyone, whether it be self-destructive or extroverted violence

My second contention is about the definition of free association, and how it can be applied more in depth to this debate. As was previously mentioned, this theory is a business contract between employer and employee for psychoanalysis, which immediately infers that these sub-states would be beneath the nation in which they were once equal. This simple loss of position is unfair to all parties involved, and consequently any nearby nation. If these nations secede than the effects would selfishly impact more than just the parties involved.

My final contention is that American influence has to be analyzed. While some of America is attempting to integrate Puerto Rico into our nation, should this happen and problems arise, what happens with Puerto Rico?  Nothing good, could come out of it, surely. They would see these possibly devastating ripple effects from seperation and would have little other choice than to fear them, and who would blame them? It is human nature to avoid conflict.

This entire argument needs one piece of framework, and that is, unless the opposition is willing to support/prepare for the nearly impending violence, their case cannot stand.  When analyzing John Lock and his social contract, we must use that to make our decision. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property, which the constitution turns into pursuit of happiness because the government can protect that property and nature cannot. These nations deserve their existence to continue as equal with their associates, and should therefore remain that way.

In conclusion the judges must vote in negation due t the cases well standing amongst local and international communities, and in order to secure the idea of the American dream in tonights debate.

S.H.

Refutation of opponent’s first contention

“There is one thing that binds all four of these protectorates. They are all individual peoples with a unique culture…” As a direct quote from my opponent I feel that in saying so, he has directly aided my side of the argument. They are bound as individuals with a unique culture. Ladies and gentlemen, this makes them a boiling pot, just like The Americas. If we had allowed the south to remain seceded, then yes, they would have the opportunity to develop into something else, but there is no guarantee it would be any better than how it is with the rest of America. So these minor nations should not be allowed independence, under the theory that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. This quote from Mark twain needs to be recognized in order to avoid the danger in these nations should secession arise?

Defense of second refutation

While I thank the opposition for the re-framing their arguments, this does not dismiss anything but my understanding of the framework. John Lock’s social contract was designated and designed so that when and if the government over-stepped his bounds with the governed, that the governing would be overthrown. New Zealand and Australia have done nothing to over-step these boundaries, as was stated by the opposition in his first speech. “I do not want to give the impression that Australia and New Zealand are at fault” So this social contract would imply that these governed nations should continue being governed and nurtured.

Defense of third refutation

As has been previously stated, I took the framework to mean what it stated, at the end of the day the judges must decide whether or not I was at fault for doing so, but even with the newest definition provided, these nations are still not ready to separate.  This is once again under the idea of the social contract. They have the right to property as was stated by John Lock, and they should be allowed to share in the abundance of their nurturing nations.

Attack on final contention.

More flags…more cool flags…while the idea of separation may be intriguing, the word new needs to be analyzed. Do we, as an already crowded political world, need more gridlock, from more nations? Nations There is no need to fix what isn’t broken, no need to try something new when the current system works so well.

In conclusion, due to confusion in framework, and my ability to defend my refutations and assault their contentions with precision, the judges must vote in negation of this resolution. I urge the judges to vote based on their own inspection, but I also urge them to take my analysis into account when they do decide.