The Instigator
DrAlexander
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points
The Contender
girr29
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,665 times Debate No: 4132
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (57)
Votes (21)

 

DrAlexander

Pro

Topic 17: DrAlexander vs. Girr29

I will make the introduction to this debate simple:

I believe in matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means because:

1. The importance of national security out ways the means used to achieve the end of national safety.

2. The resolution is justified by Utilitarianism.

3. In order to achieve good ends you must have good means. Therefore, whenever the end is good, the means are inherently good as well.

I will leave it up to my opponent to determine why this is not enough and will expand on it in my second argument.
girr29

Con

I will start with presenting my case and then I will move on to my opponent's case on the resolution, and I will tell you why you will vote Con on the resolution that reads....In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

I would assume we are talking about the United States inherently in the resolution and I would hope my opponent would agree with me on this.

So with that let's move to my first contention...

I: Defintions and Analysis of Definitions in the Resolution

A: Military Intelligence
It is defined as trying to fnd understanding or reasoning behind things that pertain to military establishments. The information is not specified in the resolution, but it could be the location of something or someone or something like that. But continuing analysis, the resolution states, as long as the ends are good, then its worth it to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence. So that implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc......just as long as they get the information, because....hey....the ends were good at least. I believe that is wrong and that can't even be justified which brings me to my next point.

B: Justified
Is defined as to show to be just or right. The definitions I use in this debate are on dictionary.com and the funk dictionary. Anyways, so by doing whatever it takes to get good ends is what the resolution wants. But as you can see the definition of justified, which is listed as the first definition on dictionary.com shows that it is not right to do whatever it takes as long as the ends justify the means. Because have to show that you are being just or right, and doing whatever it takes to get good ends, does not always mean you used just or right means to get to that end.

II: Doing whatever it takes as long as it results in good ends is not right and not just.

I will use two examples, one pertaining to the resolution and another that is commonly used on my debate circuit.

A: Let's say there is a middle eastern man that you captured and he knows the location of a terrorist in the area. So you want to find out where the terroist is, so you are willing to do whatever it takes to find out where he's at, because with the Pro's thinking, you have to do whatever it takes to get good ends and find that military intelligence...like finding a terrorist. So you torture the man, you hurt him, you even go as far to threaten his family and his friend's lives to find the information you want. And he still won't give in.....so you start killing his family and friends until he tells you. After a few people are killed, the man eventually gives in and tells the military the intelligence they want, the find the terrorist and it resulted in good ends. But you see, even though it might have stopped a bigger disaster, it still was not right and not just and that it is not justified, becaus you killed people unjustly and unrightoeously to get the military intelligence and the good ends. That is not right, and that is why you should vote Con.

B: Let's say the government wanted to get rid of AIDS in Africa. That would bring a great end, right? Of course it would, so the government kills every single last person that has AIDS in Africa. So now AIDS are gone, and the good end of getting rid of AIDS is achieved. But you see, the government just killed over 20 million people, the means were unjust and unright, therefore by definition it is unjustified. Once again, that is why Con wins the round.

III: Two Wrongs Don't Make it Right
There is a logical fallacy called two wrongs make it right. That means if you committ that fallacy then you are being illogical and not right. So for exapmple, if you prevent a terrorist attack in a country by exploding a building with the suspected terrorist in it, and some other people, then you are doing something wrong to prevent something wrong. That does not make it right. All it makes the situation is that something else was wrong other than the terrorist attack which would have been wrong.

IV: Observation
The Pro of this resolution inherently believes in doing whatever it takes to collect millitary intelligence and that is wrong. And if the pro claims that they are not willing to do whatever it takes as long as they get good ends, then they are not upholding there side of the resolution, and they lose there as well. So the pro has two choices, to accept that they are wrong in doing whatever it takes to get good ends, or they can try to say that they aren't doing whatever it takes, but then they would lose automatically because they don't accept there side of the resolution that they are supposed to debate.

Moving on to the Pro's case.

I: So right here he says he's willing to do whatever it takes as long as national security is preseved. I will take this in two directions....
1: Doing whatever it takes as long as end...such as national security is achieved, doesn't make it just or right so then it is not justified. I explained throughout my case above as you can see.
2: He uses national secutiry and national safety. So that implies he only cares about the country he is in. So that means he would be willing to let the entire world come crashing around him just as long as his country's own good ends are achieved, and I believe that is not right, not just, so therefore, not justified.

II: So he wants to do the greatest good for the most amount of people. But that doesnt make something justified. Because to be justified you have to be just or right. And if you cross-apply my argument about two wrongs don't make it right, you'll see that just because you prevent some bigger wrong from happening doesn't make your smaller wrong right.

III: The means are not inherently good if they ends are. This argument truly upsets me. Look to my second contention and my examples about how if you use bad means, and get good ends, it doesn't mean the means suddenly become good. Like my AIDS in Africa example. 20 million people get killed, it results in the good end of getting rid of AIDS, but it doesnt make the act of killing everyone with AIDS good.

You will see that the Con will be the winner at the end of this debate round. Because the Pro trys to advocate that as long as you get good ends, everything is good and justified. But it is not, because once again the definition of justified is to show to be just or right. And by doing whatever it takes to get military intelligene doesnt provide and just or right things to happen. That is why the Con should win this round.

I look forward to the rest of this debate and I thank my judges for taking your time to read through the arguments.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1
DrAlexander

Pro

Off-Case:

The resolution implies that the ends are good. It MUST make this assumption insofar as it would be illogical say that, "though the ends are BAD, they still justify the BAD means." These two negative statement cannot form a positive conclusion. This is a logically based analysis, I just hope everyone understands.

I'd like to offer the following analysis in order to clear any confusion:

Means consist of the procedure (ex. torture)

Ends consist of the result of the procedure (ex. terror)

Justice and Utility...
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au...

**********************

Thank you for accepting my challenge girr29, hopefully we can inform the voters simultaneously influence and entertain the judges. Good luck...
I'd like to offer the following roadmap for the ease of the judges and voters...

CON CASE->PRO CASE!!
Of course... =D

**********************

CON CASE:

CON begins his case by assuming that I would accept his actor for the resolution. But I must contest. The actor for this debate is a just nation, the nation need not be specified, the reason it needs to be just is because the intent behind the resolution is the inquisition of moral justifications. And a nations acts can be morally justified if and only if it the actions are coming from a just nation.

Just nation is a nation that adheres to the philosophical concept of justice in its most pure form.

Furthermore, my opponent contradicts himself within his (II.B.) This will be explained later on in my rebuttal.

The second reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because there is no context available within the resolution to assume that we are to evaluate the United States. Nor does my opponent warrant his reasoning.

The third reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because we cannot evaluate empirics through a clearly philosophical resolution. (ends vs. means)

*********************

I.

A
CON's definition of military intelligence is understandable, but I'd like to sum it up in my own words:

Collecting military intelligence is the acquisition of intelligence information that is relevant to the prosperity of a particular nation, esp. the acquiring nation.

CON continued his military intelligence analysis by writing that "the resolution states, as long as the ends are good, then its worth it to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence... that implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc..."

This is not necessarily true, as I would never advocate such an obdurate position. Frowns*

If the military of a particular nation undergoes unethical or immoral means, it is undermining its own priority. The priority of any military, assuming it's not corrupt, is to protect its nation, in this case, through matters of collecting military intelligence.

Moreover, my opponent's way of evaluating means and ends is flawed throughout his entire case. This is because he undermines the importance of how moral theory is evaluated upon a weighing scale. Meaning, you must compare the two in order to determine whether or not the end is indeed good.

My opponent states that PRO "implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc..."

This is not fully true. The only way that torture and suffering would be applicable, is if the ends are justify such means. For example, if one person is trying to take over the world, the military has the right to undergo almost anything in order to save the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. This is understandable on a weighing scale, meaning it's one life versus 6.5 billion others. Is one person's life worth sacrificing for the lives of billion of other people? The answer need not be restated. This is why utilitarianism is inherently the justification for nearly ALL his examples. But for the sake of debate I'll continue to attack each point one by one. =L

B.

His analysis on the term justified further proves my claim for as to why the actor needs to be a just nation. Unless he can successfully establish how the United States is a perfectly just nation.

My opponent wrote, "...it is not right to do whatever it takes as long as the ends justify the means. Because have to show that you are being just or right, and doing whatever it takes to get good ends, does not always mean you used just or right means to get to that end."

This is a case of petitio principii that's similar to this...
I win because my opponent loses, he loses because I win.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

For that reason I'd like to offer my opponent a chance to clarify so I can properly refute your logic.

*********************

II

Opponent states,

"Doing whatever it takes as long as it results in good ends is not right and not just."

A.
He backs up this claim using to examples. His first example is flawed because it incorrectly analyzes what a just nation would do. Never would a just nation undergo unethical means in order to achieve a risky end. Meaning, a just nation wouldn't torture a suspected terrorist UNLESS it made a profound impact upon the prosperity of its own nation. The overall prosperity of a nation and its civilians is more important than the life of one individual. Now, never could someone even IMAGINE a just nation would murder an innocent family, as that would achieve nothing. This is justified through Utility.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
B.
His second example is where he starts to contradict his actor analysis. This is a direct contradiction because of practicality issues. The United States would not implement a homicidal solution to the eradication of aids. The end that nations are trying to achieve, is NOT the elimination of AIDs infected persons, rather a cure for AIDs. Governments are not trying to kill all people who have AIDs because it's nearly impossible, rather expensive, and of course, immoral.

*********************

III.
I'd like to ask my opponent to clarify his intent behind his third contention, he shows no clear link for as to how this is relevant to the resolution. I cannot see how a just nation would undergo such an irrational attempt to stop a terrorist attack. As of now this argument has no impact in today's round because my opponent fails to offer a clear link between his example and the resolution itself.

*********************

IV.

Once again my opponent offers a fallacious argument that continues to center around an unsound logic. I'm not inherently believing in doing WHATEVER it takes, as I have established earlier in this rebuttal, I am evaluating through a weighing scale. Meaning the military can do whatever as long it is enough to achieve the good end.

**********************

PRO CASE:

I. (Grouped as a whole)
CON wrote, "So right here he says he's willing to do whatever it takes as long as national security is prese[r]ved."
This a statement has been proven unsound throughout my rebuttal.

I'd like to repost what my opponent considers a warrant for his attacks against my case...

"[this] doesn't make it just or right so then it is not justified.".
AND
"...and I believe that is not right, not just, so therefore, not justified."

This is NOT a proper way to attack a case. This is once again a form of petitio principii.

*********************

II.
Actually since my opponent offers no insight for as to how Utilitarianism is an unsound moral theory then it still stand until he properly refutes it. This point has been defended throughout my case.
http://www.utilitarianism.com...

*********************

III.
My opponent only justification behind his refutation has already been debated.

As of now PRO is winning because National Security and Utility have been upheld thoroughly within the round .

Thank You.
girr29

Con

girr29 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DrAlexander

Pro

My opponent has left me at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, there is nothing for me to respond to nor defend. Whether or not this was intentional, my opponent's forfeit deprives me of a chance to uphold my affirmative stance. For this reason, I strongly urge you to vote PRO. I have upheld my burden of proof throughout the resolution which has yet to be refuted by my opponent. If my opponent makes any new responses or arguments it would be unfair, as I wouldn't have a chance to respond.

MOST IMPORTANLY:

"If you opponent drops important arguements... that means he has agreed to them."

http://www.angelfire.com...

My opponent agrees with me, thus I win.
________________________

I ask my opponent to only crystallize what has gone on so far within this round, by crystallization I mean reviewing what has occurred during this debate without presenting any new arguments. I'll will lead by example.

The following is simply crystallization of what has occurred during the round, in order to not be hypocritical, I will try my hardest to NOT bring up new arguments, though I should, as I do reserve that right.

________________________

In order to determine the victor of this debate, we must evaluate the arguments present within through a 'veil of ignorance'. Furthermore, it is clearly an affirmative win. As I will explain throughout the following analysis:

I initiated an affirmative stance that was established upon three avenues of avocation. Those avenues consisted of the following:

"I believe in matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means because:

1. The importance of national security out ways the means used to achieve the end of national safety.

2. The resolution is justified by Utilitarianism.

3. In order to achieve good ends you must have good means. Therefore, whenever the end is good, the means are inherently good as well."

Though, each of these points were refuted during round one, the attacks have been proven illegitimate within my responses that I made during my round two. My case still stands because he has not proven how national security shouldn't be the utmost priority of the military. He has also failed to prove how Utilitarianism is a foul theory and/or not relevant. Lastly, his only response to my third case point consisted of the fact that it really frustrated him, to which I countered through a weighing scale analysis.

The debate will now be broken down in the following manner.

My opponent's attack ---> My response ---> Winner

________________________

Opponent writes,

"I would assume we are talking about the United States inherently in the resolution and I would hope my opponent would agree with me on this."

I respond,

"CON begins his case by assuming that I would accept his actor for the resolution. But I must contest. The actor for this debate is a JUST nation... the reason it needs to be just is because the intent behind the resolution is the inquisition of moral justifications. And a nation's acts can be morally justified if and only if it the actions are coming from a just nation.

A just nation is a nation that adheres to the philosophical concept of justice in its most pure form...

The second reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because there is no context available within the resolution to assume that we are to evaluate the United States. Nor does my opponent warrant his reasoning.

The third reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because we cannot evaluate empirics through a clearly philosophical resolution. (ends vs. means)"

I win this argument because I have given you 3 reason for as to why the United States is not a suitable actor for this resolution. The impact this makes is that whatever analysis that my opponent offers is illogical because they all inherently assume that the United States is the actor, when infact it is not.

_________________________

Opponent writes,

"... the resolution states, as long as the ends are good, then its worth it to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence. So that implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc......just as long as they get the information, because....hey....the ends were good at least."

I respond,

"If the military of a particular nation undergoes unethical or immoral means, it is undermining its own priority. The priority of any military, assuming it's not corrupt, is to protect its nation, in this case, through matters of collecting military intelligence.

Moreover, my opponent's way of evaluating means and ends is flawed throughout his entire case. This is because he undermines the importance of how moral theory is evaluated upon a weighing scale. Meaning, you must compare the two in order to determine whether or not the end is indeed good.

My opponent states that PRO "implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc..."

This is not fully true. The only way that torture and suffering would be applicable, is if the ends... justify such means. For example, if one person is trying to take over the world, the military has the right to undergo almost anything in order to save the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. This is understandable on a weighing scale, meaning it's one life versus 6.5 billion others...This is why utilitarianism is inherently the justification for nearly ALL his examples."

PRO wins this contention because I offer insight upon the role of a nation, whenever I show how this action of unnecessary torture is "undermining [the nation's] own priority". I also offer a way to evaluate moral theory, which is evaluated upon a weighing scale. Meaning, you must compare the two in order to determine whether or not the end is indeed good. With this analysis I offered a relevant example.

The impact this makes is that whenever my opponent evaluates theory, like utilitarianism, his thought process is flawed because it ignores the "weighing scale". Meaning ALL of his exampled are invalid, due to his lack of understanding moral theory. For this reason you must default PRO, to say the least.

________________________

The rest of my responses would follow in the same manner, but most of his arguments were difficult to refute because they relied upon an "I believe that is not right, not just, so therefore, not justified" type argument, which is hard to understand, and even harder to refute. I asked my opponent for clarification, in order for him to have maintained atleast some ground, unfortunately he forfeited this opportunity. I have gone through ALL of the necessary steps in order to win this round, I will reiterate the fact that you MUST vote PRO.

Thank you for your time.

-Alexander
girr29

Con

Well seeing that I have been busy lately and if you read the comments below you'll see that, I'm going to finish up this debate by quite simply telling you why inherently the con does win the round, and how I proved that in my first speech and despite the fact I was unable to post a second speech I should still win the round.

By the way.....In the past I've seen debates where the Pro will post comments after the Con has given their last speech, and by doing this the Pro takes away the right the Con has at the beginning of the round which is the right to go last. The Pro has the right to go first but not to go last. So i would hope my opponent....who has been very rude in his comments as you may see below.....would refrain from posting any more comments after the round. I think if he does this he is taking away my right to speak last, and that would be viewed as very unsportsmanlike, dirty, and underhanded.

Anyways....

The Crystalization of why I win the round.

Justified - This is the main definition that has to be proven one way or the other in the round. And seeing as though I am the only who offers a definition in the round and he never actually disproves the fact that he is being unjust, I win right there. His main arguments that he stated at the beginning and refrences throughout his entire case were......

1. The importance of national security out ways the means used to achieve the end of national safety.

2. The resolution is justified by Utilitarianism.

3. In order to achieve good ends you must have good means. Therefore, whenever the end is good, the means are inherently good as well.

And by disproving those by applying my definition of justified and arguments in my case then by debate guidelines the Con has done what is necessary to win the round.

Why his arguments dont hold up.
He's willing to do whatever it takes as long as national security is achieved in the end, but that is not just or right which is the definiton of justified. So that does not fulfill what he is supposed to meet in the resolution. Pull through my arguments i made in the 1st speech about the AIDS/Africa. Just because I achieved an end that has no AIDS, doesn't mean that killing everyone with AIDS was right or just, all it means is that you ended up with good ends, but by very unjust and unright means, and once again that does not fulfill the obligation of justified. He makes essentially similiar points in his 2nd and 3rd arguments. In his 2nd he says that the greatest good for the most amount of people is justified. But again how is doing whatever it takes to get good ends, just or right? It's not....once again the Africa thing, 20 million people with AIDS are killed to stop the rest of the world from getting AIDS, you stopped AIDS from spreading any further, it has a good ends, but the means are no way just or right. And once again on the 3rd, means are not inherently good if the ends are good. And since he discusses national security that means he only cares about whatever country that he resides in....so pretty much lets say we lived in Country X and the entire world was trying to take parts of our land, so we kill everyone in the entire world expect for our people, that is not just or right. You got the end result you wanted which was, no one will bother trying to take over your land again, but the means of killing everyone so that wouldn't happen is not right, it is not just, and that is why it is not justified and that is why my opponent loses because he never proves he is either one of those, all he proves is that he gets good ends, but you see the definiton of justified does not ask for that and that is why i win the round.

When voting at the end of round judges I hope you take this into mind.
1) That in order to oficially forfeit a round I have to not post for two rounds. I missed a post for one round, but that was because I was not able to find good enough time to do so why'll I was in the twin cities. Please read the posts below to see why.

2) I have proven the bare essential thing I have to prove in order to win this debate round. Which is that it is not justified to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence as long as the ends are good. Because of the definitons I have shown, the examples that shine light on it, and everything I have proven in my case.

3) So because I have not forfeited the round according to the rules, and because I have proven what I need to in this round, and because I believe I've presented my way in the most professional manner in this round and decided to take the high road whereas my opponent has been very rude and underhanded thus far with his comments you can see below, I think you must vote Con.

Reasons I win:
1) In accordance with rules.
2) I have proven what I need to in order to win the round.
3) I presented and have maintained more professionalism.

When judging those are the factors I believe must be taken into hand, and I think I have accomplished those three the best.

Thanks for judging and reading through this debate, I realize that sometimes people are really busy and might other plans. That is what happened to me in the 2nd round, I would hope you wouldn't punish me for, and I hope you read through this crystalization with an open mind and will make a good determination of who won ther round, I think you will see that was the Con.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
*rubs eyes* sigh.

//
You guys are so clueless when it comes to philosophy and morally correctness, and your elistism is present whenever you agree that killing Africans would equate to a good end. Oh we have eradication of AIDS in Africa, untill a foriegner visits, oh yeah, millions of dead Africans, terror, and probably war would be your ends as well, not just mere eradication.
//

I really don't think you have enough information to make a value judgement on either myself or him - nor do you have any information on our educational status or our knowledge of morality and philosophy. Nor do you have any knowledge of our views on elitism. In fact, elitists probably wouldn't respond well to an African example (elite) - the fact that we have voted fairly is a testament to our lack of elitism.

That said, you seem to ignore the syllogism I repeated (that I voted off of).

DESIRED END: Eradication of AIDS.
****We all agree that this is the end, and that its a good end****

BAD MEANS: Killing all infected people.
****This was the means he presented****

Explanation: BECAUSE - not in spite of - all the issues you posed (as well as the moral wrong of killing Africans) the bad means negates the benefit of the good end.

HENCE. Neg vote.

And let me point out, in cases where you are the minority of one who agrees with your opinion, you may want to reflect on it as *all* of the people arguing against it are doing so for a reason
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I would respond to the AIDS example by saying it wasn't related to military intelligence - end vs means and military ends vs means are different (is what I would've argued). You never took this approach.

@Contradiction of premise:
You state: It is not practical to say anyone would kill everyone in Africa with AIDS.
Then you state: We must view the actor as a just nation! No just nation exists!!!

So if we must view this debate with a paradigm of realism and pragmatism as you suggest in your first statement, then how do we weigh the actor as a just nation, which exists nowhere in reality or practicality (to your own admission)?

@Utility and Justice: Its not a class on utility, and in your haste to condemn me as arrogant, you missed the critical link to the resolution (which you missed). Perhaps one of us is arrogant after all, but its not me. The resolution demands you prove justice is achieved within the means if the ends are good enough. You attempt to use utility. Utility does not prove justice. Therefore, all utility arguments inherently fall because they don't prove the resolution. Which is all I said.

I remain the same person I was 2 days ago. In the face of arguing with someone who insists 2+2=3, I have to better explain in - sometimes that requires direct responses. And YOU asked for a RFD.

@The Actor: I hadn't responded to your question - I guess you didn't want one.

@Dead Mill: I was being sarcastic too. It was a joke. Chill.

Finally, to attempt to make a value judgment on me or my personality is arrogant and silly - psychologists take thousands of hours with hundreds of strategic sessions to map out people's personalities. You read a RFD that pisses you off because it points out how severely flawed a case you ran, and then you try to feel better by calling names. I think there is generally one mindset that chooses to call names - a childish one. I'll let you decide if that's you or not.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
If all I get in response to my post is you rambling about nothing and you trying to boost your ego, I will not respond. So please keep everything you say relevant, if it is not relevant, then please do not bother responding. Nobody likes reading paragraphs of people being rude and talking about nothing. It is pointless, immature, and lacks education. Remember, education is the goal of an RFD, please keep it that way.
Thanks!

-Alexander
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Pluto:
You guys are regardng this example too highly. How would you respond to it?
I am not says the nation is a just actor, that is not what I meant, read my post again, and you will notice that I stated the MODEL should be a just nation. Because we are trying to determine what a just nation would do. If a just nation would do it, then it is justifiable.

Public Forum:
Could you explain how this is a contradiction of premise? As I stated earlier, doing a just action, is pragmatic, killing all of the people in Africa who has AIDS is not pragmatic. Simple.

A fully functional society is a society that lives off justice. Utility is there in order to determine whether or not certain actions in society can be justified, I never said that utility IS justice or any of that nonsense. Thanks, but I am well read on Mills works, stop being an egotistical know it all, your self absorbancy further prices your sup/inferiority complex. ALL that you just said was completely uneccesary, because you are not responding to what I wrote, instead, you are trying to give unwanted classes on Utility. What ever happened to that "Im humble" attitude?

I am familiar with the death of J.S. Mill, what I was protraying was something called sarcasm "I know, I know, shocking."

You guys are so clueless when it comes to philosophy and morally correctness, and your elistism is present whenever you agree that killing Africans would equate to a good end. Oh we have eradication of AIDS in Africa, untill a foriegner visits, oh yeah, millions of dead Africans, terror, and probably war would be your ends as well, not just mere eradication.

You just wasted your time with the whole just actor ramble, I already agree with you. I admitted I was wrong, I did not mean actor, I meant somewhere along the lines of a model. Now, you're essentially arguing for the heck of it.

Next time you respond, please no more straw man.

Thanks!
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
lol, its exactly what i said: He's trying to run pragmatism against AIDS but then concedes there is no existant fully just nation. Contradiction of premisesss...
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
lol utility doesn't relate to the AIDS example and utility does not demand that ends justify means. And utility is never linked to justice - what may be good political policy is not necessarily just. And Mills never even claims his processes lead to justice - they lead to the ideally functioning society. (So say his works) Big diff. So no Pro link...at all.

I would humbly submit reading Mills's work before making such broad conclusion - its a false conclusion.

And um...I hate to be the one to break the bad news, no one ever likes doing this...but...Mills is dead. I know, I know, shocking. But yeah, it happened May 8. 1873. hahaha

//
NO. I'm sorry if this is contrary to your beliefs, but, if you killed every AIDS infected African, you are not eradicating all AIDS.
//

You totally missed the point of this example - he was saying removing AIDS in Africa is a good end. And it is. But killing all people with AIDS is not a good means. Hence, ends don't justify the means. And that's his whole point!!!!! THE END OF NO AIDS IN AFRICA IS GOOD. THE MEAN OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DEAD IS BAD. END NOT JUSTIFY MEAN. Hence neg vote.

Your own words bro.

@Just actor: Then your analysis was not based on the actor implied in the resolution at all! From what you just explained, you were trying to provide a model - that has NOTHING to do with what an actor is. I suspect you've heard some policy kids talk debate jargon and copied it, but the meaning of actor implied in the resolution is "who is doing this action according to the res". You say a just nation. This is abusive.

From your new take on the argument (which was noexistant in the round), you still don't provide warrants or links. So...no.

And I agreed the USG is not a good actor (note: I'm speaking about the policy term actor, not your model thing) but really, there shouldn't be an actor; its a value resolution.

Therefore, vote Con.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Again you fail to realize what we are saying. Yes, it isn't good, but it is an EXAMPLE of the act of trying to do something good that creates something worse.

And if no nation is just, then why do you want a just nation to do this? How can something non-existent do something?

Anyway...
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Okay, so next time anyone sees J.S. Mill, just let him know that his Ultilitarianism theory is wrong because of an AIDS example.

NO. I'm sorry if this is contrary to your beliefs, but, if you killed every AIDS infected African, you are not eradicating all AIDS. People have AIDS all over the world. Furthermore, the end is STILL not good because you just killed millions of people, millions of dead people is your end, dead people is bad.

But I digress, It doesn't matter what the resolution says, if I post an argument, and it remains unrefuted, then it stands. I said you cannot use an example using BAD means in order to acheive BAD ends, that has NOTHING to do with Utility, it has nothing to do with this resolution.

I understand your actor analysis, I apologize, I meant something else. I don't mean actor I meant something like a model. Like, we are trying to do what a just nation would do. Basically, what would a just nation do? I am not being contradictory, because doing ONE just action is not impossible.

BTW, no nation is perfectly just. Please don't tell me you really think the US is the most just.

You guys seem pretty solid in your positions, so if if two people think im wrong, I might be missing something.

Thanks again!

-Alexander
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Oh. I was re-reading your comments. I have a response to:

//
The reason for as to why I established the fact that the nation MUST be just, is because we are evaluating whwether or not the movement is justified. Simply put, the resolution is trying to determine what a just nation would do.
//

We are evaluating whether or not a nation is justified. This is correct. Now, if the nation was perfectly just, what would we be evaluating? We know they'll be justified. So the idea of a perfectly just nation undermines the resolution itself (as I stated, its abusive). The resolution is not describing a just nation's actions - rather it is asking if a nation's actions are just.

This critical premise is something I think you missed throughout the debate.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
BTW: You cannot use practicality to argue against the AIDS example (Which at several points was in reality undertaken, but failed in the face of public outrage) then demand the actor be a just nation - which you yourself doesn't exist.

This serious conflict of premises was the final nail in the coffin.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rgb1110 6 years ago
rgb1110
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by bonnieluvs 7 years ago
bonnieluvs
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
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 
Vote Placed by pakipride 8 years ago
pakipride
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by KirkPorter 8 years ago
KirkPorter
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 8 years ago
shaqdaddy34
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CaliBeachgirl 8 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by james_y 8 years ago
james_y
DrAlexandergirr29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30