The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
fazz
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,012 times Debate No: 47980
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Zaradi

Con

Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist.

Standard LD debate. All the usual arguments and cases associated with LD are fine by me.

Standard debate conventions (lets try to be civil, even though I'll probably break this one >.>), no new arguments in the final round, etc. etc.

Sources and citations may be posted via an outside source (either in the comments or in some other method that you can link to us) if you need the extra characters. I plan on utilizing this, so I might as well offer the same curtousy to my opponent as well.

I'm gonna take a risk and make this open to whoever can snatch this up first. To whomever accepts, please do not make me regret doing this.

First round will be for acceptance only.
Second Round for cases and rebuttals for pro.
Third round for rebuttals and defenses.
Final round for conclusions and such.
fazz

Pro

I accept the question above. Please reveal your stance/issue?
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

To negate is to deny the truth of, so the aff burden is to prove that individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. If the aff can’t prove that individuals have moral obligations to those in need, you negate. My thesis is that individuals do not have moral obligations, especially to people in need.

CONTENTION 1: Ontology. The affirmative relies on individuals having a moral obligation but individuals don’t exist in the sense they say they do. I don’t deny that there are physical entities but individual identity doesn’t exist thus neither does a moral code apply to an individual. Thompson:

“A perceived object … is experienced … as a unity. It is given as one integrated thing that has other sides than the side currently perceived –otherwise it would be only a two dimensional appearance, a facade. In experiencing it as real, I perceive it as more than what appears from my current perspective … the unity of the thing is paralleled by the unity of the perceiving body – the "lived body" or "body-subject." … The seeing from different perspectives, the tasting, the hearing, etc. must all be done by the one, unified experiencing body. I must be one body for the cup to be experienced as one, real thing. … I am not currently seeing the cup from the other side; it is the potential for the body to look at it from other sides that constitutes the cup with the meaning "real object," as opposed to a mere appearance. … the lived body is not itself an object perceived. It is on the side of the perceiving.”

This means a) individuals are mearly the extension of perception and b) there is no abstract individual acting based on ethics but rather only the unification of the lived body. Even if individuals do exist, this identity isn’t static and can’t be said to have a moral obligation. We can’t have normative claims about an individual. White:

“ontologies emerge from the conjunction of two insights: acceptance of the idea thata ll fundamental conceptualizations of self, … are contestable, and awareness that such conceptualizations are nevertheless unavoidable for any sort of reflective ethical and political life. … ontologies do not proceed by categorical positings of … human nature or telos … Rather, they offer figurations of human being in terms of certain existential realities, … These figurations are accounts of what it is to be a certain sort of creature: one entangled with language; conscious that it will die; possessing, despite its entanglement and limitedness, the capacity for radical novelty; and, finally, giving definition to itself against some ultimate background or "source" that evokes awe, wonder, or reverence”

This negates the truth of the resolution because a) individual identity doesn’t exist and thus the resolutional statement individuals have a moral obligation is non-sensical and b) even if individuals did exist they would be incapable of having moral obligation because the contents of their agency is always changing. And this precludes the AC because the way we construct the individual is a prerequisite to having moral obligations. Butler:

“before we can speak about a self who is capable of choice, we must first consider how that self is formed … the sphere in which the subject is said to emerge is ‘‘ontological’’ in the sense that the phenomenal world of persons and things becomes available only after a self has been formed … To describe this scene is to take leave of the descriptive field in which a ‘‘self ’’ is formed and bounded in one place and time and considers its ‘‘objects’’ and ‘‘others’’ in their locatedness elsewhere. The possibility of [ethics] … presumes … the self and its … world have … been constituted,”

CONTENTION 2: Epistemology. I will defend that inductive reasoning is false. Propositions can only be deemed true based on breaking down the proposition but the parts of a propositions are non-verifiable and can never said to be true. Wittgenstein:

“Propositions … are … products … of simpler propositions … We must eventually reach the ultimate connection of the terms, the immediate connection which cannot be broken without destroying the propositional form as such. … They … are the kernels of every proposition, … On plane I figures are drawn … ellipses and rectangles of different sizes and shapes, and it is our task to produce images of these figures on plane II … We lay down the rule that every ellipse on plane I is to appear as a circle in plane II, and every rectangle as a square in II … from these images the exact shapes of the original figures on plane I cannot be immediately inferred. We can only gather from them that the original was an ellipse or a rectangle. … The case of ordinary language is quite analogous. If the facts of reality are the ellipses and rectangles on plane I the subject-predicate and relational forms correspond to the circles and squares in plane II.”

CONTENTION 3: Metaethics. Metaethics precludes normative ethics since it determines the nature of moral statements. A standard without metaethical justifications is literally unwarranted. I defend the metaethical view of error theory, which contends that all moral statements are false.

a) Relativity - moral statements are false because there are variations of moral codes relative to distinct cultures. Mackie:

“The argument from relativity has as its premise the … variation in moral codes from one society to another … and … the differences in moral beliefs between … groups … within a complex com­munity … radical differences between … moral judgments make it difficult to treat … [them] as apprehensions of objective truths. … Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people's … participation in different ways of life. … moral heretics and … reformers … have turned against the established rules … of their own communities for moral reasons, and often for moral reasons that we would endorse. But this can … be understood as the extension … of rules to which they already adhered as arising out of an existing way of life.”

Thus, because moral statements differ between cultures, there is no reason to believe that there is any objective moral truth.

b) Queerness - humans do not have the moral faculty to know objective moral truths, therefore our moral statements are false. Mackie 2:

“the argument from queerness … has two parts, one metaphysical, the other epistemological. If there were ob­jective values, then they would be … qualities … of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. … if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else. … none of our ordinary accounts of sensory perception or introspection or the framing and confirming of explanatory hypotheses or inference or logical construction of conceptual analysis, or any combination of these, will provide a satisfactory answer, [—] a special sort of intuition is a lame answer”

Because morality functions on a higher level than any other object or faculty we can understand, our moral statements are always insufficient to prove an objective truth.

CONTENTION 4: Normativity. I defend the act-omission distinction, which holds that inactions have a different moral status than actions.

a) Positive obligations require an infinite obligation from an actor, while negative obligations are dischargeable. Trammel:

“it is possible for a person not to inflict serious physical injury on any other person. … that in no case is it possible for a person to aid everyone who needs help. The positive duty to … help those in need sets a maximum ethic which could never let us rest … But it is a rare case when we must really exert ourselves to keep from killing a person.”

Positive obligations are thus always insufficient, meaning there is no moral reason to adhere to them.

b) If one violates a negative obligation by harming another, they have eliminated all possibilities that the person may avoid the harm. However, if they fail to uphold a positive obligation, it is still possible that something else will happen to prevent the harm to the person. Trammel 2:

“Some actions … destroy a good … whereas other actions do not destroy … the option of realizing the good in question. Suppose that the continuation of x’s life is good. Then obviously if someone kills x, not only does the killer fail to contribute toward the realization of this good; he also closes everyone else’s option to do so. … A positive duty is the duty to do an action to bring about a certain good, which someone else might also have the option to bring about.”

c) Any goal-based moral theory (such as the AC’s) must revolve around what may not be done, rather than what may. Mackie 3:

“A plausible goodwould have to beactivity. It could not be justa termination of pursuit.choose successively to pursue various activities from time to time, not once and for all.morality as a source of constraints on conduct cannot be based on such comparative evaluations. if we set out to formulate a goal-based moral theory, but in identifying the goal try to take adequate account … that there is not one goal but indefinitely many diverse goals, and that they are the objects of progressivechoices, then our theory will changeinto a right-based one.”

If the act-omission distinction is true, then you negate since all omissions are permissible and the NC is an omission to help those in need. We can’t have a moral obligation to assist those in need since not helping them is an omission, which doesn’t have any moral status. The only thing that can be immoral is an action, which is the AC. This answers back and precludes the harms of the AC since we cannot be responsible for the suffering of people who we do not actively harm.

Sources:

http://www.debate.org...;

fazz

Pro

Note: Please, open up your source file so I can check you citation.

In the same way you allude previously in #2 to Wittgenstein {quote: “The case of ordinary language is quite analogous”} but he only says we are limited by our thoughts. It only means that we cannot for example hear things outside audibility range, we cannot see light beyond the range of 380 nanometers - 780 nanometers. This does not, however, mean we physically do cease to exist, or that we are stuck in parallel universes, but simply that we cannot say more than we perceive. Ignorance is bliss, and if inductive reasoning is false how exactly did you come to this exact conclusion?

#3 Metaethics?

Metaethics as you stated is false. Meta- means false. Although moral claims are not absolute they are still pragmatic. Thus, contention 3 is a false claim.

Moral statements differ between cultures, there is no reason to believe that there is any objective moral truth. However, you should not assume that other cultures are moral. Our morality is bounded by knowledge. Knowledge according to plato is the light at the end of tunnel (cave), and since we are stuck underground our insight must try to be conservative.

#4) The philosophy of inaction is a moot point. The onotology of Western thought derives from this distinction, per se, action is via thought. As John Stuart Mills, in perhaps the most famous piece of literature on democratic thought states:

“Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good”

In pre-emptive Reasoning, contemplative thought has been aggrandized to that of action. Despite, positive and negative responsibility as cited by Trammel the case of democratic thought would cite the case of positive and negative liberty[1] by Berlin. The tension between positive/negative holds because if we want safety then sometimes we have to give up, and sacrifice something dear to us, in so much as we take part in a democratic venture such as our Constitution we say protect us from outside harm and thereby we work for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

Rebuttal:

Thus, your normative theory is good in terms of philosophical enterprise but the basis of Western Democracy cannot be left to paltry-idealism? Thus, I would cite as Affirming (Pro): that to protect freedom and liberty in our current situation we need to be based on pragmatism, not on ethics. Furthermore, since the fundamental tenets of our freedom are based upon these two texts I cite them as undeniable proof that our positive obligation must hold strong. If we are to thrive in the next half-century or so, or fall behind other super-powers will depend upon the tenacity of common-will and thus, our natural altruism must not fall apart. It is our obligation to assist those in need so that the moral-fabric can hold society together. Amen.

P.S.: I leave the burden of proof to Con. As Pro it is my job to support the motion at the heading of the page. The job of negation as outlined in your previous argument falls on your shoulders. Please provide the proof.

I hand it over to you..



[1] +ve/-ve Liberty: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

Two things to note before I go through his rebuttals:

First; My opponent didn't make any arguments in favor of the resolution. All of his arguments were specifically refuting the arguments I raised. This means that you already negate the resolution by default as there are no reasons as to why the resolution is true. I'm giving you four different layers explaining how the resolution is false. That's game.

Secondly, my opponent drops my first contention explaining how, on an ontological level, the concepts of invidivuals as an identity doesn't exist. This means that it's impossible for individuals to have a moral obligation, since individuals don't exist to begin with. This is an instant negative vote.

Now to go through his refutations. Start with his refutations to Wittgenstein:

First: my opponent is misunderstanding what Wittgenstein is saying. What Wittgenstein is saying is that we can't be making broad statements of truth with absolute certainty because those statements are impossible to verify. We can have an idea as to the truth behind an inductive statement, but we'll never know for certain if it's actually valid or not. Hence, inductive reasoning is false.

Secondly: There's a difference between inductive reasoning (what I'm attacking) and deductive reasoning (what I'm using to attack it). Feel free to educate yourself: http://www.livescience.com...

With Wittgenstein defended, you can extend out the second contention of Wittgenstein saying that inductive reasoning is false. This makes the statement of the resolution impossible to actually prove true, and therefore it's an instant negative vote.

Now, go to his refutations against metaethics:

First: It doesn't look like my opponent understands what metaethics actually is in his attempt at semantically refuting my third contention. Feel free to read up as to what metaethics is (http://plato.stanford.edu...) here.

Second: My opponent essentially concedes to the argument I'm making in his attempt to refute it "Moral statements differ between cultures, there is no reason to believe that there is any objective moral truth.", this is literally the entire argument being made by Mackie 1.

Third: To respond to this statement ("However, you should not assume that other cultures are moral. Our morality is bounded by knowledge."). First off this makes literally zero sense. Second off this suggests that morality is subjective, rather than objective. If this is true then you instantly negate the resolution since if morality is subjective, there can't be objective moral obligations, making the resolution automatically false. And third off there's literally no warrant behind his assertion that morality is bound by knowledge, it's just a bare assertion of his.

Fourth: My opponent drops the argument coming out of Mackie 2, which is the argument from Queerness. Because we don't have the capabilities to understand objective moral thoughts as humans, our moral statements are inherently flawed and false.

With my third contention defended you can extend out that, talking about how error theory proves that all moral statements are inherently false. This means that the resolution is inherently false, thus meaning a negative vote.

Now move on to....f*ck...the rest of it, sans the last paragraph.

First: this entire section of my opponent's rebuttal literally makes zero sense.

Second: there's no actual relevance to the debate at hand. If there is one it's so absolutely muddled that the LINK to the debate is non-sensical.

Essentially, please opponent, clarify on what the literal f*ck you're trying to say from "#4) The philosophy of inaction" to "the betterment of the nation as a whole."

Now, move onto the last paragraph of my opponent's round.

First, the entire thing is one big, jumbled, confusing, unwarranted assertion.

Second, off of the statement "our positive obligation must hold strong. ", I'm already refuting this. Look to my first conention, which was dropped, that talks about how the identity of an individual doesn't exist, therefore we cannot hold obligations. Then look to the second contention which talks about how these inductive arguments are inherently false because inductive reasoning is false. Then look to my third contention, half of which was dropped, which explains how moral statements like these are false.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot, so I'm just going to summarize everything now:

1. My opponent dropped the entirety of contention one, which is the ontological point, as well as Mackie 2 from contention three which talks about the Argument from Queerness and how we as human beings don't have the capabilities to understand objective moral facts, therefore the moral statements we make are inherently false. These are two reasons how the resolution as a statement is false, which means a negative vote.

2. My opponent misunderstood contention two in his argument. I'm successfully defending it and extending it across, proving how inductive reasoning is false. That makes inductive statements (like the resolution) false, which means you negate.

3. My opponent's arguments against the error theory were based off semantics and misunderstanding. Error theory proves how all moral statements are false, therefore the moral statement being made by the resolution is false.

4. My opponent's arguments against the act-omission distinction literally make zero sense. If the act-omission distinction is true then the resolution is an easy negative vote since that makes all omissions permissible, which the negative side is.

5. And to top it all off, even if you don't buy a single argument I've made in the round, it's okay because my opponent hasn't even made one. He hasn't made a single argument in support of the resolution, rather deciding to focus all of his efforts in refuting my arguements. This means you're defaulting to the negative on a) a risk of of an impact, and b) beacuse he's failing to uphold his burden of proof of showing how we have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
fazz

Pro

Thank you for the lesson.

Indeed, I do not know the difference between induction and deduction! Myself, I find generalizations and stereotypes quite pracitcal in the decision-making process. I am sure you beg to differ?

YOU SAID: First: this entire section of my opponent's rebuttal literally makes zero sense.
Second: there's no actual relevance to the debate at hand. If there is one it's so absolutely muddled that the LINK to the debate is non-sensical.
Essentially, please opponent, clarify on what the literal f*ck you're trying to say from "#4) The philosophy of inaction" to "the betterment of the nation as a whole."

Ok ok. Calm down. Now I will try to address the "grevious harm" that I have seem to have caused you to stir up such a commotion.

I will try to keep this short. I dont even want to try to repeat first round arguments as you have done so I will So I will stick to the summary from Round 2.

Sure, inductive reasoning is false. But so is deductive reasoning. The point Wittgenstein is saying is that we have to trust that the scope of knowledge is limited. Hence, even if as you say we cannot use inductive reasoning to say we should not be altruistic in helping others, but morally this is not rational to do so. Your point: Inductive is false. So we cannot trust our reasoning. Counter-argument: Since we cannot logically find our way out of epistemological questions, I say we must search for truth, sans-salvation, in our well-grounded traditions, morals and religion.

I also take offence at your opening statement: With Wittgenstein defended, you can extend out the second contention of Wittgenstein saying that inductive reasoning is false. This makes the statement of the resolution impossible to actually prove true, and therefore it's an instant negative vote.

In what highminded authoirty would you argue a statement that you knew from the outset to be false ~ this is bordering on the absurd.

Your last point. You accuse my rebuttal of not being in`SYNC. My dear fellow, it is you who has lost your sight, and let your ethics blind you? Let me advise you, that in any democratic enterprise of such, and such, glorious nation building we are bound by laws and decrees. You would like to assume that yes we are not obligated towards our duties. However, for the vast majority of the nation this is not true. You choose to live your life in moral relativity, or what you call Subjectivity. But you could not afford this relaxed subjectivity had it not been for space for movement, thinking and free speech. It is the foundation of law that allows you to keep you high-minded morals to yourself. When you say such things as INSTANT NEGATIVE VOTE you show that you do not actually believe in the argument's premise, or conclusion. Like in all obligations it is not the results, no it is most definitely your intentions that shine. In all matters, we must always protect the weak or one day we too shall fall prey to our own conformity - Kant said that (Or maybe he didn't).

Nonetheless, our obligation (aka, the burden of proof !), is thus only a means to keep democracy from decaying. By protecting the hungry and the destitute we insure our own shared future. This is the basis of any social contract .. I'm quite sure somebody famous somewhere high-high-up said that??
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Con

Since this is the final round I won't really put any new arguments or rebuttals in here. I'll just address the "clarification" (if you can call it that) that I asked for in the previous round, then summarize what has happened this debate and why you'll be voting negative.

But let's start with the clarification (the clarification part, at least I think it is, is the paragraph from "Your last point. You accuse " to "(Or maybe he didn't)." just for a heads-up):

Like, the only thing I get from this is that he's saying the only reason I can advocate for the arguments I'm advocating for is because of the laws and judicial system set up by the US and that because I'm asking for voters to vote in my favor that I don't actually believe in the stance that I'm taking. First of all there's literally no relevance to this at all in the debate. It's not even relevant to any of the arguments I've made. At best it's just off-topic. At worst it's ad hom (you don't even believe in your own arguments, so they shouldn't matter at all).

So in light of this, you can extend out my fourth contention talking about the act-omission distinction as a reason to negate today. He hasn't responded to any of the arguments coming from there. And since it's going conceded you can vote off of it. If the act-omission distinction is true, then omissions become permissible, which is what negating functions as (not assisting people in need).

Now lets go up a few paragraphs to the paragraph that goes from "Sure, inductive reasoning is false." to "Sure, inductive reasoning is false.".

My opponent continues to misconstrue what the Wittgenstein evidence is saying. He does it this time by saying that, essentially, inductive and deductive reasoning are the same thing (they aren't, an explanation of the differences between the two can be viewed in the source I provided last round). But even if they were, that doesn't mean we automatically have a "come to Jesus" moment. If we assume that inductive/deductive reasoning is false, then the resolutional statement "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need" cannot possibly be a true statement. It negates itself. Essentially, my opponent conceeded to the argument, again.

So extend out my contention three, which is the Wittgenstein argument, which talks about how inductive reasoning is false because it's impossible to verify. Because the resolution is an inductive statement, it's false which means it's automatically negated.

Since that covers pretty much everything he said this round, time to summarize.

1. My opponent again dropped my first contention, which was the argument about how individuals as an identity don't exist, therefore making it impossible for "individuals" to have a moral obligation. Don't let him touch on this in the next round as that's highly unfair to me. You vote negative here.

2. I'm clearly winning the Wittgenstein debate, and proving that because inductive reasoning is false, and because the resolution is an inductive statement, that the resolution is automatically false, meaning you negate the resolution here as well.

3. My opponent dropped my contention three here entirely. This is the argument about error theory and about how all moral statements are false, and since the resolution is a moral statement, it is therefore false and you negate the resolution here. Don't let him touch on this in the next round as that's highly unfair to me.

4. My opponent concedes my fourth contention as well, which I already talked about and explained above. You can negate off of it as well.

5. And the best part of it all. Even if you don't like a single argument I've presented so far, if you don't buy a single word I've said this entire debate, you still negate the resolution because my opponent still hasn't even made an argument in affirmation of the resolution. All of his arguments have been in refutation to mine, but never once has he argued for why individuals have a moral obligation, rather he's just argued for why I'm wrong. This means that you negate the resolution because a) of a risk of impact, I'm the only one who's affecting the resolution via arguments, b) burden of proof. He had the burden of proof to prove that individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. He failed to meet that burden, therefore you negate, and c) risk of clash. I'm the only one creating arguments and content to create clash and actually have a debate. Therefore I'm doing the most work and therefore more likely to be the winner.
fazz

Pro

LETS JUST *SHAKE HANDS* AND.. AGREE TO DISAGREE?

Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
Thanks, for the vote Josh.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
(Post #3/ cont. from below, below)
The ethical foundation of India China etc might be so different from the US, that we may never understand culture through a moral prism. Zaradi says we are not objective, so moralit is "False"! Not true, we should not make that leap of faith based upon logic. Here, pure logic fails us and that is why I urge the debate-view to be objective and trust in his/her morality.
That is why since we can never understand culture through the logic of Zaradi, or pure rationality, we musst trust in our morals. Or else we have nothing left. The statement is true. Individuals have a moral obligation to help those in need. Because in our culture it is moral to help so. Just because in other places in the world it is not moral to do so, we should not assume that morality is their ideology.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
(Post#2 /cont from below:)
BLUE comments .. "and Pro did nothing to refute them??" I did mention (in debate)
"Moral statements differ between cultures, there is no reason to believe that there is any objective moral truth. However, you should not assume that other cultures are moral. Our morality is bounded by knowledge"
If like Zaradi/Blue steel you believe in moral relativism (not to be confused with multi-culturalism, which is O.k.) but if you do then you are saying that because Western culture is moral then other culture must also be moral? We should never assume the foundations of other cultures - that is why they are other cultures, All cultures may have a different ethical foundation than morality, Thus it is not being multicultural to say that other cultures are moral, it is the opposite, it is saying that we already, understand them, they are not like us but we can anthropologically contain knowledge, so we can contain their culture in glass jar, in intellectual shelf in the back of our minds. By explaining it, not only is Zaradi is saying that we, living in the US, do not have any morality, but he is also saying that other cultures do not have a right to exist, because believe me where I come from people believe they have an objective morality, and they absolutely have a right to do so.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
@ bluesteel's vote
you said in voting: if there are no objective morals and no positive obligations, then there cannot be a moral obligation to do anything.
thanks for the vote! but my point is .. that zaradi said the other cultures have a diffirent morality. Zaradi"s statement is not supporting multicutluralism, he is infact creating a two step move here: First of all, we have to accept Zaradi is moral-relativist. The second move, that I find deceptive, is the assumption, that it is impossible for us to be moral individually. When we say "we are moral!" this is an objective statement. Zaradi says this is false, why because there are other people on planet earth who do not share our morality. However the opposite is also true, to say, "other cultures are not moral" can be considered "objective" but it is not. You see both statements are considered not objective because in reality if we do not other culture then we cannot know the foundation of their ethics, that indeed they have a culture based upon morality.

Because we limit ourselves to knowledge and knowledge is culture.
Posted by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
zaradi being the instigator of this debate claims that the parts of the debate do not exist. Rather than creating arguments that support the resolution he makes ad hominem against the resolution's existence. The resolution of this debate is a matter having or not having a moral obligation to assist those in need, not the existence of morality and individualism. Being that he started this debate and then...... hedged the debate,...... it is impossible for me to vote in his favor on any parts except spelling and grammar which is at best compensation to the fact that his opponent's first language isn't English. I am uncertain to even vote for Con in that respect as Pro seems to have a decent command of the language despite some minor grammatical errors. Pro speaks to several point concerning the resolution.
1.Pro: " ...our natural altruism must not fall apart. It is our obligation to assist those in need so that the moral-fabric can hold society together."
2. Pro: " By protecting the hungry and the destitute we insure our own shared future."
And thereby wins the debate on the grounds that his arguments are toward the resolution and they are unchallenged.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Changed the debate? No...
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
Better luck finding a partner next time. But you changed the debate after the acceptance round, right?
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Well preferably the resolution, but since you didn't even make an argument other than trying to refute mine, it's kinda hard for you to argue for the resolution now...

F*ck it. I'm just gonna remake this. Actually look at the deabte you're accepting next time before you accept something, especially when you don't know what you're getting into.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
What do you want to debate about?
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
But I would prefer to be against the motion. It seems like an easier debate?

If I 'trip' some of you LD rulebook please inform me here. Thanks!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
ZaradifazzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not really much of a debate. I was going to throw up a really long RFD for this but pro failed to address almost all of cons contentions. Metaethics was cons strongest point, and I feel like it won him the debate, at least for me. Pro was not really able to touch this much and most of cons assertions went untouched. I was going to leave a RFD line by line on why con won this but there is no need. If it was controversial I was going to do a longer one, but I think it is quite clear that the lack of refutations hurt pro and left con with an easy win
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
ZaradifazzTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting for Pro is the only option. Con claims to not exist. he also claims that reasoning does not exist, and there are no individuals. But reasoning tells me, that I should place my one vote on something that does exist and that is pro. Pro says that we do have a moral obligation while con spends so much time talking about our existence that it's off topic and pro get's conduct points. Further RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
ZaradifazzTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This wasn't really much of a debate because Pro didn't really refute anything. Con wins that there is no individuality. Had Pro advanced any argument for individual identity, I would have rejected this argument because it's pretty weak. But Pro didn't. The inductive reasoning argument was never impact, so I can't vote on it. I personally just don't understand why this argument proves a Con vote, since that was never explained. The "no positive obligations" and "no objective morality" arguments were the easiest and clearest wins for Con. Pro did nothing to refute them. If there are no objective morals and no positive obligations, then there cannot be a moral obligation to do anything (because some cultures will not have that same morality and "assistance" is a positive obligation). Con had better sourcing and used his sources in a better way. Pro barely tried, saying "Kant said this (but maybe not)."
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
ZaradifazzTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a disappointing debate... Pro didn't argue that "moral obligations" exist but just "obligations" from what I understood, and so he didn't satisfy his burden of proof. Con had a bad conduct and used the word "f*ck" a couple of times.