The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

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 5 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,881 times Debate No: 22989
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Zaradi

Con

Well since the amount of debates I'm in has died down a bit, it's time for me to take on another LD debate!

Let's bring back an oldie-but-goldie. Because didn't we all love the obligations debate?
The resolution is as follows:

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

Pro is affirming the resolution.
I am negating the resolution.

Now to set a few ground rules for the debate...

1. For cases only, posting the round in a google document is permitted. Rebuttals must be outside of a link.
2. All types of LD cases are permitted. Any type of weighing mechanism is allowed (V/C, Burdens, etc.)
3. Dropped arguments are considered concessions.
4. In the case of a forfeited round, all seven points are to go to the victor.

2 week voting period.
72 hours to argue
8000 character rebuttal limit (cases can be posted in a link).

Round structure will break down as follows:

1. Aff posts case.
2. Neg posts case/rebuttals, pro rebuttal and defense.
3. Neg rebuttal and defense, pro rebuttal and defense. No new arguments in these rounds.
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

I accept the topic
Indiciduals have a moral obligation to assist those in need
I will be debating for the topic as pro

AS no definitions were provided
Here are the definitions:-
Individuals in these debates will be human beings who has some sort of power to help those in need like rich people or volunteers
Moral obligation is a responsibilities placed on a just human
Those in need includes all creatures (animals and humans)

I am only posting one contention this round as Con has not posted anything and maybe disadvantaged


Contention 1 - Status quo
At the moment many countries are helping people and countries in need
Centerlink provides lot of different types of disadvantaged people(unemployed, single mother, teenager) funds to survive in Australia. This funds maybe a bit inadequate but they still provided to all people till they get in a better condition.
Australia and America donated 110 million dollars to Haiti Earthquake
UNESCO and many other organisation helped to end Somalia's famine
OXFAM and Kiva collect funds and help many third world countries to improve their living conditions

These are just a few example which highlights that first world countries and organisations do help people in need.

The Organisations that help third world countries are filled with volunteers which do their best as individuals to help people in need.

I still believe this services are inadequate so they should be increased but if people that have power start refusing to help people in need, then people will start dying not because of starvation, poverty and poor living conditions but because of first world country individuals who were selfish, immormal, merciless and refused to help people in need.

India is the best example. India is rich but because of its corrupt politicians majority of Indians are poor. Poverty, Starvation, Unemployment and Unhappiness spreads like fire you never know when it will hit you.

Summary
In conclusion, Individuals have a moral obligations to help people in need and support the status quo. Except the truth it is your turn to make the difference
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

https://docs.google.com...#

My case is above, as stated in the rules since I can post a case through an external link. My rebuttals are below.

The first thing that my opponent's case is lacking is some sort of weighing mechanism to weigh the round under. As this is Lincoln Douglas debate, we need some sort of way to weigh between the advocacies of each case (whether that by a value/criterion pair or a burden system). Since my opponent literally goes straight from definitions to contention level arguments, his case is lacking one. I'm providing you with a clear weighing mechanism through my V/C, so you will be preferring my case for that reason. The side that best realizes self-regarding ends is going to be winning this debate.

Since he has no actual framework to go by, you can prefer mine that I provide. Thus, we will be evaluating the round under an egoistic viewpoint.

Next, let's go down to his sole contention. This contention, basically saying that people do currently assist other people, so we are obligated to, is flawed for a number of reasons.

1. This entire contention commits the is/ought fallacy, which basically says that just because something IS happening doesn't mean that it OUGHT to happen. Just because people are robbing banks and killing people all the time doesn't mean that people OUGHT to rob banks and kill people.
2. You can TURN this contention as offense for the negative case, as he lists a bunch of charities and volunteer networks who are choosing to do it on their own free will, not out of any obligation to do so. This helps my case because the entire advocacy of my case is saying that we can assist people, but we are not morally obligated to do so. A perfect example of this would be volunteers, which my opponent provides for me.
3. He's not actually proving that we are obligated to. His entire contention says that we DO help people, and that we SHOULD KEEP helping people, but he doesn't actually prove that we are MORALLY OBLIGATED to, as is his inherent resolutional burden. Since he is affirming the resolution "Individuals have a MORAL OBLIGATION to assist those in need", he must prove that we are obligated to, not that we should or are.

So as I'm getting tired and think I've pointed out everything that needs to be pointed out, let's go through how this first round of arguments went down.

1. He's providing no sort of weighing mechanism to allow you as the voter to weigh arguments by.
2. He has no sort of framework, so you prefer mine.
3. His sole contention is massively flawed.
4. He's not actually affirming the resolution.
5. His argument only proves my case.

So, because of all this, I urge a vote for the con debater.
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

Hello ladies and gentleman
Let me get right to my case

Individuals have a moral obligation and ought to assist those in need. Assisting those in need ought to be valued and should be done as only helping others is the best way to show a individuals morality and kindheartedness. As every thing as 2 sides, I believe trying to help someone as moral obligation is far more superior rather than helping people due to self interest. There are many people which help other people as volunteers, but they also are representatives of many thousands of people which don't get the chance to escape from their daily routine. Thus I hope Assisting those in need continued to be valued over helping individuals because of self interest.

There are some thing which are ought not to be left on self-interest. If we left our Health on self interest of individual just imagine what would happen. Lets make it even narrower, What would happen if we left Health of Americans on their self-interest for a year to a decade. I can say with the guarantee that obesity will increase, diseases related to obesity will increase and minimal benefit will incur to all american's health. Same goes on with assisting people in need. In India the majority of government is corrupt and they have left helping those in need in self interest. You see results in front of you, Indians are one of the poorest people in world before third world countries like Africa, Indonesia, and other non developed islands. Australians on the contrary, have designed Center-link which uses the tax payed by the people to help those in need of Assistance in Australia. As tax is compulsory, Australia indirectly has made its citizens to be obliged to assist those in need. Thus it should be quite explanatory by now that Helping those in need ought not to be left on self interest as it may have dire consequences over a prolonged period of time.

It is true that majority of us help others for net utility gains but if this debate is looked at a moral point of view rather than a egoistic view than a world will be truly be filled with rich countries and rich citizens. I never have mentioned or supported crimes but there are something which continue to change lives and must ought to happen like helping those in need

Lets preview how the debate is going at the moment :-
I have provided a moral, more beneficial to human framework which is far superior, just and moral for the society of the today unlike my opponents egoistic framework which will never grant any individual with success, happiness, wealth or morality.
I have affirmed the resolution and my arguments have proved my case.
I hope I have also proved that relying an opponent is a major risk which no person or country will take unless they or he or she are mad or a tyrant

So because of all this, I urge a vote for the pro debater and the support for the pro side
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

As my opponent's last round was, at best, highly scattered and disorganized, I'll just go through it line-by-line and explain how he's still wrong.

"Assisting those in need ought to be valued and should be done as only helping others is the best wa to show a indiiuals morality and kindheartednes."

How does it make us morally obligated? Wouldn't this just be a self-regarding end, to show others that we are kind? This bites directly into my case and proves how we AREN'T obligated to do anything.

"I believe trying to help someone as moral obligation is far more superior..."

This only begs the question of does this obligation exist, which is exactly what my case refutes. If the obligation doesn't exist, then we can never be morally obligated to do something.

"If we left our Health on self interest of individual just imagine what would happen."

Extra-topical. All my case says is that we are not obligated to do anything via egoism being true.

"As tax is compulsory, Australia indirectly has mide its citizens to be obliged[sic] to assist those in need."

False. This only proves egoism further. Paying the taxes is mandatory by law. It's the government's choice, and in their self-interest, to use that tax money to help the poor out. They are, in no way, shape, or form, obligated to use that tax money to assist people.

"It is true that majority of u help others...must ought to happen like helping those in need."

What is the point of this entire paragraph? I've literally read and re-read this paragraph five times trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and it literally makes absolutely no sense. It literally proves nothing.

Let's go down through his checklist and see why he's failing to meet his own reasons.

1. I have provided a moral, more beneficial to human framework which is far superior, just and moral for the society of today.

False on multiple levels.
1. You have not provided any sort of moral reasoning. I'm the only one providing some sort of ethical justification through egoism. You have nothing to back up your claims as to why your case promotes moral action.
2. Your framework cannot be more beneficial because it doesn't exist. You literally have no framework. Unless you wanna count definitions as a framework, then even still it's not proving or arguing anything.

2. I have affirmed the resolution and my arguments have proved my case.

False. You have only showed that we should assist people in need and that people are assisting those in need. But none of this proves that we as individuals have a MORAL OBLIGATION to assist those in need. You never touch this.

Of course, this is all presupposing your case stands. You never answered a single response I had against your case. You didn't even bring up your case this last round. In so far as you dropped it, you concede all my responses to it, and concede that your case is false. This only leaves my case standing. Here we can auto-negate.

3. I hope I have also proved that relying an opponent is a major risk which no person or country will take unles they or he or she are mad or a tyrant.

1. Where have you proved this?
2. This presupposes that this even matters in the debate, which is false.

I think that touches on everything. So let's recap the debate, since this is the last round, and explain why he's (still) losing and why I'm (still) winning.

1. His case doesn't actually affirm the resolution. He never adresses if humans have a moral obligation to assist people in need. All he says is that it's good to help people, and people do help people, so somehow we have an obligation to assist people. This is entirely unwarranted and flat-out false. Thus, he literally cannot win, even if you buy the 'responses' he put against my case.
2. He drops all of the arguments I made against his case. So even if you extend his case across the flow for him, it's a) refuted and dropped and b) turned as a reason to negate instead of affirm.
3. He's not providing any sort of weighing mechanism with which to weigh the round under, as necessary for any LD debate, regardless of whether it's a Value/Criterion or a burden system of some sort. I'm the only one providing this through my value and criterion, so you can prefer my case and negate here.
4. I'm the only one with any sort of framework that even discusses ethics. You prefer my case here.
5. I've sufficiently defended my case. You can extend it across the flow and negate here.

With that. I urge a vote for the con debater, and would wish to remind my opponent that, since it is the last round, no new arguments are allowed.
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

d1a6r7s1h9i9t8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
100th voted on debate for me XD
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Oh come on. A FF? Don't take this off the main page.
Posted by d1a6r7s1h9i9t8 4 years ago
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8
It is my first LD debate so don't be too harsh
I have no experience but maybe Zaradi is doing it little bit better
Posted by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
Wow. Pros main argument is the conclusion. So far a domination for Con.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
LD Debate == Lincoln Douglas Debate. It's a special kind of debate format.
Posted by InBonobo 4 years ago
InBonobo
Interesting.. What is "LD"? Is there a glossary here - haven't been here in a while..
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I would accept but seeing as this was my first ld topic ever, I would have to write a brand new case.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
I would accept, but it's too much work. xD
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Thinking about it... You just took the side I wanted to debate lol. I am just trying to think of arguments I could make, and what counters they would experience, before I decipher whether I want to take this.

The biggest thing I foresee being a problem is the long old subjective versus objective morals debate coming up. I would have to argue for subjectivity, where the Con would most likely advocate objectivity. Most debaters on this site hold the objective value of morals over the subjective pretense, thus, would this debate really be worth it? I haven't judged a debate tourney in a while and am un familiar with this topic, but I would like to see some Pro arguments before accepting, if I do decide to do so.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Oh come on. I know we just recently got an influx of new LDers. Why won't one accept this? xD
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by bcresmer 4 years ago
bcresmer
Zaradid1a6r7s1h9i9t8Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
Zaradid1a6r7s1h9i9t8Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Yup
Vote Placed by babygirl23 4 years ago
babygirl23
Zaradid1a6r7s1h9i9t8Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ..............
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
Zaradid1a6r7s1h9i9t8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: as per rules all seven points go to the victor,
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Zaradid1a6r7s1h9i9t8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the rules, a forfeit rewards the other debater with all 7 points.