Ron Paul Psychopath Negative When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases

it spreads. Because I agree with our Lord, Messiah and Savior Dr. Ron Paul, I negate the resolution, resolved: The US is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. My value for this round is that of morality defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. This is the best definition of morality because it is consistent with the common understanding of the term and so ensures both debaters have an equal opportunity to achieve the value. This is the proper value to evaluate this resolution because intervention will inherently mean that the United States must use coercion to stop human rights abuses as an abusive government is unlikely to invite intervention or it would be called assistance. The use of force or coercion places lives in jeopardy, the lives of those working for the abusive government, the lives of those being abused, the lives of bystanders, and the lives of our military men and women as well as well as the lives of any military men or women intervening multilaterally with the United States and is fundamentally a moral question. This is because matters of life and death must be moral questions and our moral conclusions inform the laws and policies we thus construct. To evaluate how we can achieve morality in this debate my criterion is that of Possessing Moral Capability. Kant differentiates between the sensual being and the rational being in saying that we do not hold the sensual being, such as a lion, to a moral standard because it does not have the capacity to make moral decision. Beings that possess reason, such as most human beings do, are held to moral standard because they can make moral decision. This leads me to my observation. Observation 1: To achieve the value of morality, the actor of the resolution, the US, must first be capable of moral decision. Framework: If I can show how the US government, or rather its politicians, does not possess moral capability, then you should default to the neg on the basis that the actor of the resolution is incapable of making moral decision and thus achieving the value. Contention 1: Congress is comprised of psychopaths who advocate humanitarian intervention Paul, Ron (Lord, Messiah, Savior, PhD, Libertarian God, Creationist, ex-congressman, author, Austrian economist, obstetrician-gynecologist, veteran, ex-presidential candidate, lover of liberty, BAMF) Farewell Speech to Congress 2012: Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them. Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to

make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative. The immoral use of force is the source of mans political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned or especially when well-intentionedthe results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds. Contention 2: Psychopaths do not have moral capacity Lehrer, Jonah (Author, graduate of Oxford University and Cambridge) Does Moral Action Depend on Reasoning? 2010 When you peer inside the psychopathic brain, you can literally see this absence of emotion. After being exposed to fearful facial expressions, the emotional parts of the normal human brain show increased levels of activation. So do the cortical areas responsible for recognizing faces. As a result, a frightened face becomes a frightening sight; we naturally internalize the feelings of others. The brains of psychopaths, however, respond to these fearful faces with utter disinterest. Their emotional areas are unperturbed, and their facial recognition system is even less interested in fearful faces than in perfectly blank stares. Their brains are bored by expressions of terror. Neuroscientists are beginning to identify the specific deficits that define the psychopathic brain. The main problem seems to be a broken amygdala, a brain area responsible for secreting aversive emotions, like fear and anxiety. As a result, psychopaths never feel bad when they make other people feel bad. Aggression doesnt make them nervous. Terror isnt terrifying. (Brain imaging studies have demonstrated that the amygdala is activated when most people even think about committing a moral transgression.) Kant defines reason as how one interprets their environment and acts upon that. As we can see, psychopaths have deteriorated senses of reason and therefore lack moral capacity, hence their tendency for moral transgression. Link: Our governing bodies are entirely comprised of psychopaths whom are incapable of moral action. If the primary value for this round is that of morality then we must reject the resolution on the basis that the government is incapable of making moral decision no matter what.