The Instigator
thethief
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 58968
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

thethief

Pro

Anybody who says different will stand to loose this debate. That is not a threat, but a promise... I guarantee you an unconventional debate that borders on racism, but never crosses the line. To me, racism is not necessary a negative phenomenon, it can indeed be used as a tool to ensure a better future for our Civilization. I will explain if you debate me!
KhalifV

Con

I accept.
I am eagerly awaiting arguments for this unconventional and seemingly absurd motion.
Debate Round No. 1
thethief

Pro

Hello Khalif!

Had you been a student of Logic, you would agree that proving my statement only requires a single supporting example. I will explain if you need me to.

My grandfather is named Calle - he fought in Africa during WW2. The guys often used racism to achieve military objectives in the war against Montgomery. As an example senior officers would shout racial slurs to "locals" to herd them away from the Battlefield. This would hurt the locals pride, but they would indeed run away which saved a lot of lives. Saving lives, all life, must be considered a good deed, even if it means having Nazis shouting the N-word and spitting in Your face.

Another example would be a hillbilly shouting racial slurs to African-Americans that for some reason did not hear what was shouted. The Hillbilly feels satisfied and no one got hurt.

I think we can agree that I have provided you with two valid examples. You might not agree With the morals of my main characters, but the argument holds.
KhalifV

Con

I am a student of logic, and as such I can say your arguments are red herrings.

The resolution: "African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies"

Wrong:" not in accordance with what is morally right or good".
In order to fulfil the BoP, my opponent must first prove foreign aid in Africa is morally wrong. I don't even have to prove that it's right, but I will.

Providing African Americans With Aid Is Moral:

A)Deontological Ethics : "
Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules."

Categorical Imperative: " Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

P1) If not performing an act, would result in a less favorable universe, then the act is moral.
P2) Providing aid to starving and dying Africans results in a favorable universe.
C1) Providing aid to Africans is moral

Syllogism defense of P2:
P1)Dying and starving is less desirable than not starving and dying
P2) Promoting death prevention(not dying) and prevention of starving is favorable
C1) Providing aid to starving and dying Africans results in a favorable universe.

Syllogism 2 neccesarily substantiates P2 in syllogism 1. In regards to Deontology, aid in Africa is moral.

B) Consequentialism: "Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences."

P1) If not performing an act, results in worse consequences than performing the act, the act is moral.
P2) Not providing aid to Africans results in worse consequences, than providing aid.
C1) Providing aid to African's is moral

Defense of P2: Although the system is not perfect, not sending aid to Africa will result in much more death and starvation. Death and starvation are bad consequences. So acting in a way that reduces death and starvation is moral.

In regards to consequentialism, sending aid to Africa is moral.

Part 2 Of The Resolution: In addition to proving sending aid is wrong, he must also prove spending the aid money on popcorn and movies is more moral and productive. (Hundreds of billions on popcorn and movies).

As aforementioned, taking away all aid would have bad consequences. I maintain that spending it on popcorn and movies would not result in better consequences. BoP is on pro to show that it would. Pro must convincingly prove this second part of the resolution, he just can't maintain it by default.

Noll Hypothesis: " A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis."

So unless he can conclusively prove allocating the money to popcorn and movies would result in better consequences, he can't fulfill his BoP.

Aid Is In Accordance With The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights:

Article 25.
  • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.un.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.investopedia.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
thethief

Pro

thethief forfeited this round.
KhalifV

Con

My opponent has forfeited and offered no arguments. Vote con ^.^
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
In the context you're using wrong, it is moral. You're addressing what's best for survival, and you're saying not giving aid would be best for survival
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Remember consequentialism, any action that promotes well being is good. Let's see moral actions of early homo-sapiens: Not killing offspring, even in the face of increased complication. Chimpanzees and other apes kill offspring. The actions of the Chimpanzees arn't moral and they're not good for survival. These primates will drive themselves extinct. Working together, vigorously protecting the young.; these are actions by early homo-sapiens, that are considered moral, that are shaped by evolution, that promoted the survival of the species.
Posted by thethief 2 years ago
thethief
The use of the Word wrong is not Limited to moral debates. It is wrong to stick Your head in the oven, just as it is wrong to spend Resources on a lost cause.

There might be an evolutionary pressure to become more moral, but believe me, nature has never chosen morals before survival. Give me an historical example not using the blink of time that is the last few thousand years...
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
your motion says "wrong", so it is a moral debate. Also your arguments don't seem to address the survival of our nation. Also there is an evolutionary pressure for moral behavior. See the work of Michael Ruse
Posted by thethief 2 years ago
thethief
This argument has nothing to do With moral. It has to do With the survival of Our civilization. Moral is a New academic invention. Morals did not help us prevail over the Neanderthals. Morals did not make us help terminally ill contagious People. Nor do the lions donate Food to the hyena on a good day.

Morals will be a welcome human attribute one day in the future. for now lets focus on survival. Helping somebody extend their lives by just enough time to procreate one last time does not help. Movies and popcorn are the bread to Our Circus - a necessary Resource that should only be spent on those that carry their weight. We do, Africans don't.

Your arguments are barking up the wrong tree. You are welcome to help us hyenas, but do not expect the favor in Return. At least not until we hyenas have the Technology that Ensures Our survival and quality of living.

Feel free to vote again...
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
lol Yahey, you got con and pro mixed up in the vote
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
If anything you defended racism, and not your premise. You should be debating why aid to Africa is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies. Racism is a completely different subject
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
thethiefKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. wtf
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
thethiefKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
thethiefKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last round. Con didn't try to justify their position and instead tried to justify racism. Pro didn't need to prove that the resolution is false, but offered how aid to Africa is moral under two moral systems. Pro was the only participant to use sources.