The Instigator
Lexus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheResistance
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Nov PF Topic

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 82266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Lexus

Con

Resolved: in response to the current crisis, a government should prioritise the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.

Structure:
1. I create debate, you provide constructive arguments
2. I provide constructives, you rebute
3. I rebute, you defend
4. I defend, you waive.

Rules:
1. Follow structure without breaking flow of debate (forfeiture or defending before I even rebute, etc)
2. No deconstructional semantics - all definitions are up for debate
3. In the end of every round provide a tongue twister.
4. Failure to follow the above rules will result in an automatic forfeiture

Tongue Twister:
Pad kid poured curd pulled cod
TheResistance

Pro

I affirm the resolution resolved,
Resolved: In response to the current crisis, a government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.

Contention 1: The government's sponsorship of providing services is a good example of how nations can prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.
Richard 2014:
The State Department and USAID are major funders of the top humanitarian organizations responding to the crisis in Syria and the region, providing over $1.3 billion in assistance to date. In an attachment to this testimony, I provide a summary of the multi-faceted response that has been mounted by UN agencies and NGOs working with U.S. support, including the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the World Food Program (WFP), the UN Children"s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Together, these agencies and others are providing food, clean water, shelter, medical care and other basic essentials. They also go beyond these basic needs and seek to protect the most vulnerable members of Syrian society today " displaced children, at-risk women and girls, the elderly and the disabled " from threats as diverse as cold winters, unsafe play areas, poor sanitation, child marriage and violence against women and girls.
Richard 2014:
Since 2012, the United States has provided $300 million in bilateral budget support to the Government of Jordan, on top of our annual budget support, specifically to offset spending Jordan has devoted to hosting refugees from Syria. We have also provided over $30 million to help alleviate strains on the water and education systems. USAID has built five new schools in northern Jordan and is expanding 67 existing schools. It is also supporting a water program focused on water collection, storage, conservation and the repair of water pipelines in communities in northern Jordan hosting a large number of refugees. New programs have also been launched to help community members, parents and schools cope with tensions between Syrians and Jordanians. WFP vouchers are used by refugees to buy food from merchants, thus providing another benefit directly to local people. The United States also provided a $1.25 billion sovereign loan guarantee to help Jordan respond to external pressures, like the Syria crisis, while it continues its economic reform program.The United States has provided more than $96 million through international organizations and NGOs to support the Government of Turkey in its humanitarian response. Our assistance has funded tents, blankets, cash cards for food, cook stoves, schools, education supplies, teacher training, technical assistance and more. We have provided $70 million for programs to help refugees in Iraq, and I was in Erbil in mid-December when UN relief flights began to operate between that Iraqi city and Quamishly in Northern Syria.

Contention 2: History has proven that the governments should prioritize humanitarian needs over national interest.
A. DE WAAL, 1997;T. G. Weiss,1999
The birth of the modern human rights-based "solidarity" movement has often been
located in NGO responses to the Biafran famine in 1968.11 The famine resulted from
the independence war fought by Igbo secessionists of Biafra state in south-eastern
Nigeria against the Federal Government. The secessionist struggle received no
diplomatic support from the West, the Soviet bloc or other African states, which were
concerned over the destabilising effects of questioning state borders. Within a few
months the dominance of the government forces and the lack of outside aid had
doomed the struggle to failure. As Alex de Waal notes, it was only by accident that
Biafra became a cause celebre for the human rights movement. The international
attention stemmed from the famine becoming news through the publication of
photographs of severely malnourished children.
The media coverage, of the first African famine to become headline news, led to
accusations that the British governments" arms shipments to the Nigerian leadership
and lack of support for the Biafrans was making it complicit in genocide by
starvation. The lack of UN or outside government relief for the secessionists enabled
the humanitarian aid effort to be monopolised, for the first time, by the NGOs. Biafra
was the ICRC"s first large-scale relief operation and Oxfam"s second field operation.
The first real test for non-government humanitarian organisations resulted in a split
between the ICRC and major NGOs over the nature of humanitarian action. Oxfam
broke its commitment not to act unilaterally and took an openly partisan approach
claiming that "the price of a united Nigeria is likely to be millions of lives".12 Several
international NGOs followed, arguing that breaking from the ICRC position of noncriticism
was the only ethical way of assisting the population because if the Biafran
people lost the struggle for secession they would face systematic massacre by Federal
forces.
The NGOs and the church-funded campaigns became the main propagandists, and
source of international support, for the Biafran struggle. The Joint Church Airlift
supplied aid and attempted to establish a Biafran air force, against Nigerian
government opposition. This led to a federal ban on outside aid flights.

Contention 3: Many human rights groups monitor and advocate for the wellbeing of refugees.
JEN
Following the uprising that began in Tunisia on December 18, 2010, a civil protest broke out in southern Daraa in Syria in March 2011 and escalated into armed fights. Surging violence threatened the lives of citizens and kept producing huge numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees for several months. As of January 2015, about 3.8 million Syrian refugees have fled their country and about 7 million people are internally displaced. The number of people in need of help has reached roughly 12 million. Jordan, one of the major recipient countries, has about 620,000 Syrian refugees.
JEN
The difference in culture between People from Jordan and People from Syria is evident in the drastically different way they use water. Moreover, due to the increase in number of refugees, it is getting difficult to provide water equally to all the residents in the camp. In order not to cause feelings of unfairness and discontent amongst refugees, improvement of water situation is a pressing issue. As the length of stay for many of those living in the refugee camps is getting prolonged, JEN has begun building a water supply network located in a camp area that works as an organizing body of water and hygiene related activities. We are working alongside other NGOs and international organizations with the goal of providing safe and stable water supply for the refugees. In addition, as a way of supporting the Water and Sanitation Committee run mainly by the residents, JEN repairs water sanitation facilities, which the committee itself cannot tackle due to its tight budget and lack of technology.

Sources used:
1.http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk...
2.http://www.jen-npo.org...
3.http://www.state.gov...

So with these reasons and many more, I strongly urge you to put a pro ballot in today's debate. Thank you.

`TheResistance
Debate Round No. 1
Lexus

Con

Okay my opponent didn't give a tongue twister but honestly, who cares? I am not a fascist unlike some 'progessive' debaters on this site so I believe that relentlessly attacking one mistake is a waste of time.

Also, hope you like the worst krtik written of all time :) There is tons of literature against this so I hope that you can forgive me

My partner and I negate the resolved: in response to the current crisis, a government should prioritise the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.

Observation 1. The resolution is saying “in response to the current crisis”. Because of a lack of clarification, we contend that the current crisis is the global crisis of not providing humanitarian aid to the needs of refugees.

Observation 2. The group, Global Humanitarian Assistance, reports, 2015, that the main purpose of providing humanitarian aid is to save lives. Therefore, if we can show that saving lives is something bad, then none of the other effects that providing aid can be justified when met with something bad. Saving lives is an a priori to any of the benefits that the affirmation offers, or, we need to consider this before all else.

Observation 3. The purpose of life is two-pronged: to continue life’s own existence and to provide a means for future existence. To say that death is bad is to say, necessarily, that ending the chain of life at its second purpose is bad - this is to say that if we allow death then it is bad because it ends future life as well as current.


Contention 1. The affirmation’s obsession with life and preventing death is a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world. Lee Edelman, professor of English at Tuft’s University, writes in his book ”No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive” (pg. 74-76) in 2004: This conflation of homosexuality with the radical negativity of sinthomosexuality continues to shape our social reality despite the well intentioned efforts of many, gay and straight alike, to normalize queer sexualities within a logic of meaning that finds realization only in and as the future. When the New York Times Magazine, for example, published in 1998 an issue devoted to the status items specific to various demographic groups, Dan Savage found in a baby’s gurgle the music to soothe the gay male beast: ”Gay parents,” he wrote, ”are not only making a commitment to our political future, but to the future, period.... And many of us have decided that we want to fill our time with something more meaningful than sit-ups, circuit parties and designer drugs. For me and my boyfriend, bringing up a child is a commitment to having a future. And considering what the last I5 years were like, perhaps that future is the ultimate status item for gay men.” The messenger here may be a gay man, but the message is that of compulsory reproduction as inscribed on the anti-abortion billboard I mentioned in chapter I: choose life, for life and the baby and meaning hang together in the balance, confronting the lethal counterweight of narcissism, AIDS, and death, all of which spring from commitment to the meaningless eruptions of jouissance associated with the ”circuit parties” that gesture toward the circuit of the drive. This fascism of the baby’s face, which encourages parents, whether gay or straight, to join in a rousing chorus of ”Tomorrow Belongs to Me,” suggests that if few can bring up a child without constantly bringing it up -as if the future secured by the Child, the one true access to social security, could only be claimed for the other’s sake, and never for one’s own- then that future can only belong to those who purport to feel for the other (with all the appropriative implications that such a ”feeling far” suggests). It can only belong to those who accede to the fantasy of a compassion by which they shelter the infant future from sinthomosexuals , who offer it none, seeming, instead, to literalize one of Blake’s queerest Proverbs of Hell: ”Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.” 13 Who would side with such ”gravediggers of society” over the guardians of its future? Who would opt for the voiding of meaning over Savage’s ”something more meaningful”? What might Leonard teach us about turning our back on what hangs in the balance and deciding -despite the rhetoric of compassion, futurity, and life-to topple the scales that are always skewed, to put one’s foot down at last, even if doing so costs us the ground on which we, like all others, must stand?


Contention 2. Heteronormative stances like these cause violence by excluding the non-normalised queer and making him ”Other”. Gust Yep, Karen Lovaas and John Elia, professors at the University of San Francisco, in their publication ”Journal of Homosexual Studies”, volume 45, No. 2/3/4, in 2004, write: xiii In this passage, Simmons vividly describes the devastating pervasiveness of hatred and violence in her daily life based on being seen, perceived, labeled, and treated as an “Other.” This process of othering creates individuals, groups, and communities that are deemed to be less important, less worthwhile, less consequential, less authorized, and less human based on historically situated markers of social formation such as race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and nationality. Othering and marginalization are results of an “invisible center” (Ferguson, 1990, p. 3). The authority, position, and power of such a center are attained through normalization in an ongoing circular movement. Normalization is the process of constructing, establishing, producing, and reproducing a taken-for-granted and all-encompassing standard used to measure goodness, desirability, morality, rationality, superiority, and a host of other dominant cultural values. As such, normalization becomes one of the primary instruments of power in modern society (Foucault, 1978/1990). Normalization is a symbolically, discursively, psychically, psychologically, and materially violent form of social regulation and control, or as Warner (1993) more simply puts it, normalization is “the site of violence” (p. xxvi). Perhaps one of the most powerful forms of normalization in Western social systems is heteronormativity. Through heteronormative discourses, abject and abominable bodies, souls, persons, and life forms are created, examined, and disciplined through current regimes of knowledge and power (Foucault, 1978/1990). Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others.

Basically what these authors are saying is that the fervent belief that we should save life is a heteronormative stance on viewing morals- and heteronormativity is the complete marginalization of a large group of people. They say that heteronormativity is a form of social control over a group of people, which leads to tyranny and heightened conflict between people. To normalise the queer (or, to put it another way, to make them heterosexual or ’normal’), is the very start of conflict. Oppression only exists when we have the fervent belief that we need to save lives in order to continue the human species (something incompatible with large-scale homosexuality) - end oppression and end marginalisation by voting neg today because if you vote aff, then you are necessarily attempting to save lives, something heteronormative at its core. Thank you.
TheResistance

Pro

First I would like to point out the fact that my opponent's case was done to specifically counter mine.

Now let's look at his case.

Contention 1: The affirmation obsession with life and preventing death is a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world.
My view is not a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world.
Green 2015:
Consider an analogy. Any swimmer able to help has a moral duty to save a drowning child. He may not look around the pool to see whether the rescue would be less of a hassle to someone else, and he may not let one child drown on the ground that he already saved one yesterday. If he can effectively help, he must. Coordination among refugee-accepting countries is often required"but by effectiveness, not fairness. What matters is getting refugees settled, not how the costs of doing so are distributed (except, of course, where that is instrumental to getting more people resettled quickly).
As seen here, coordination among refugee-accepting countries is often required-but by effectiveness, not fairness. We are setting a just action by saving life, but not in a heteronormative stance like my opponent is saying.
Also, what is he/she protecting? Only the interests. We are seeking the common good of people, which is to live.
Shibbaz 2007:
Aside from the practical reasons for refugee camps as outlined above, one can take one step back and examine the underlying reason for refugee camps as such. Refugee camps, to recap, are intended to provide protection for peoples who fear persecution, most notably in the cases of civil war or genocide in their home country. The question now remains, however, is why the international community, the UNHCR and other NGOs in this case, seek to help people who have had to face extreme hardship in their home country. At the core, refugee camps are a form of humanitarian action, that is, a practical realization of an ideology whereby people perform humane treatment and provide assistance to others. Humanitarianism is based on the idea that all humans have equal value and accordingly, they should be treated with respect and dignity. Refugee camps in this light, are then based on the concept of humanitarianism which is, in turn, based on providing assistance to those who need it.
As seen, as the author claims, "to live a life without human rights is to live a life unworthy of a human being."

As seen, his first contention is now being disproven. My view on heteronormativity is not true. I am saying that all life is useful, and for the common good, we should save as many people as we can. My point on life is that it is a valuable right that humans need, so therefore we should save as many lives as we can.

Contention 2. Heteronormative stances like these cause violence by excluding the non-normalised queer and making him "Other".
This is a very interesting point. However, this is not true.
Slim 2012:
Kant"s idea of duty determines that something is always good to do regardless of any conditions. These imperatives are supreme moral principles that make for absolute duties and obvious "oughts." Their goodness is not dependent on their outcomes. This is moral thinking governed by a categorical "must," not a hypothetical "if." Operating on categorical imperatives means that I do something because it is always good, not because I think that if I do it then good may come. Kant sums up the difference:
"Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represent the practical necessity of a possible action as a means for attaining something else that one wants (or may possibly want). The categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end."
From this brief encounter with Kant, it is fairly obvious how international NGOs who have signed up to these three documents understand humanitarian values today. They claim clearly that being humanitarian is a categorical imperative. It is an end in itself. It is an unconditioned "ought" and must never be subject to conditions. There are no "ifs" in the humanitarian imperative. From this moral reasoning flows the idea of humanitarian duties that always exist regardless of circumstances or of aspirations around other competing moral ends. In other words, a Kantian humanitarian would have a lot of problems with the suspension of a humanitarian program as a hypothetical means to leverage a good political outcome on democracy or women"s rights. Equally, in the context of the new "war on terrorism," an imperative humanitarian would also find grave moral flaws in any strategy that stopped or compromised humanitarian action on the basis of some wider hypothetical arguments about counterterrorism benefits.
This shows that Slim is pointing out that human rights are a supreme value. Life is a very important value.

His argument says that mine of saving human lives is heteronormative at its core. Judges, he is basically stating that saving lives are heteronormative. I never implied that. I implied that human rights are the most important value.

So with these reasons and many more, you should vote for the Pro side today. Thank you.

`TheResistance

Sources used:
1.http://www.humanitarianleaders.org...
2.http://www.etd.ceu.hu...
3.http://ljmgreen.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Lexus

Con

It seems like I didn't make a 4th round by accident ... so just waive this round. As the 2nd speaker technically, I will both defend against refutations made and to rebut some of what my opponent said.

Let it also be noted that the neg exists within the status quo - if there isn't a reason to change the status quo (worded differently, if the aff doesn't meet some burden) then you must automatically assume neg.

Rebuttals:

C1. The government's sponsorship of providing services is a good example of how nations can prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.

Okay, so basically this entire contention is saying that because we have funded refugees before, we can continue to do so. That's not a reason to do something ... I can break both of my legs by jumping off of my roof and I am certain that someone has done this before, but that alone is not a reason to do so.

C2. History has proven that we should

Okay, and history has 'proven' that we should mass murder the Jewish people because it fits our agenda at the time - we aren't operating under a framework of "what should the past have done?", we are under the framework of what should the present do? Past grievances meddled with current and saying they are the same is misrepresentation of what is happening and what has already happened.

C3. Human rights groups say we need to

So what? Obama can say that cheese pizza is the best - just because someone said somethng doesn't mean that we need to do something. Citing sources is different than explaining what is meant in those sources - your sources have no warrants, they just say X is true therefore we need to do Y in accordance with X without showing why X is true or why Y is a good thing.

Defense:

FW: No, my case was not meant to counter yours. The aff lives in a world such that life is saved for current and future life - this is bad because XYZ what I listed. I've had my debaters run this case at a local tournament while speaking first - I am not attacking you in my constructives.

C1. The affirmation obsession with life and preventing death is a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world.

You cite some random 'Green' card saying that we need to do something in order to save life without warrants, Green just says that's how it is. You are saving life in hopes of saving life! That is exactly what is heteronormative because of what my author says! Then they cite Shibbaz 2007 saying that the common good of people is to live - and this I agree. But I am not advocating for an act of commission, rather an act of ommission (murder vs. ignoring death). Saving life is bad - but life in itself is good. Saving life for life is the fascism of the baby's face as one author calls it - and it is alienation.

You are operating in heteronormativity because the idea of saving life for life is heteronormative ... you can't say it isn't because you never actually attacked my card, just said that some random Green or Shibbaz guys say differently (without any credentials on the topic, might I add).

C2. Heteronormative stances like these cause violence by excluding the non-normalised queer and making him "Other".

Okay, you cite Kant and I have no clue how that's relevant to my point that you are causing "Other"-isation. You say there are no "ifs" in humanitarian imperative, citing someone who made a philosophical claim against my real-world impact ... it just doesn't hold as much water as you are giving it.


Whether or not you claimed that saving lives is heteronormative or not is irrelevant - the framework the aff world is working in is flawed because it is heteronormative. Saving life is bad - letting life end by nonintervention keeps dignity intact and conflict low because there is no "Other"-isation of the queer. YOU NEVER ATTACK THIS!

The aff has just cited random people with no credentials on any of the topics at all listed (Green 2015 ... okay, so what? You put sources used but never actually put a [1] in your case wheresoever so how am I to know where what was said ...) - disregard all of his attacks. The aff case doesn't provide a reason that we need to change the status quo, just that we can ... easily, vote neg and stop saving life and attacking the queer for being queer. Thank you.
TheResistance

Pro

Rebuttals:
Okay, so basically this entire contention is saying that because we have funded refugees before, we can continue to do so. That's not a reason to do something ... I can break both of my legs by jumping off of my roof and I am certain that someone has done this before, but that alone is not a reason to do so.
As seen, we can see that helping refugees has been successful as said from my Richard 2014 cards, so what I am implying is that we should continue to do so as it has shown high amounts of successful outcomes.

Okay, and history has 'proven' that we should mass murder the Jewish people because it fits our agenda at the time - we aren't operating under a framework of "what should the past have done?", we are under the framework of what should the present do? Past grievances meddled with current and saying they are the same is misrepresentation of what is happening and what has already happened.
As you can see, my opponent has compared to the extremities. He is comparing my need to protect life to the Holocaust. This is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there have been examples in Africa and Nigeria where refugees so desperately needed the food and other things. So what I am implying here is that we need to save these people.

So what? Obama can say that cheese pizza is the best - just because someone said somethng doesn't mean that we need to do something. Citing sources is different than explaining what is meant in those sources - your sources have no warrants, they just say X is true therefore we need to do Y in accordance with X without showing why X is true or why Y is a good thing.

This is not what my sources are saying. My sources are saying that since people have a need for resources, and JEN has successfully provided such, then as seen, we should continue to do it.

Let's go on to her other rebuttals.
You cite some random 'Green' card saying that we need to do something in order to save life without warrants, Green just says that's how it is. You are saving life in hopes of saving life! That is exactly what is heteronormative because of what my author says! Then they cite Shibbaz 2007 saying that the common good of people is to live - and this I agree. But I am not advocating for an act of commission, rather an act of ommission (murder vs. ignoring death). Saving life is bad - but life in itself is good. Saving life for life is the fascism of the baby's face as one author calls it - and it is alienation.

You are operating in heteronormativity because the idea of saving life for life is heteronormative ... you can't say it isn't because you never actually attacked my card, just said that some random Green or Shibbaz guys say differently (without any credentials on the topic, might I add).
Ok. You think that my view on saving life is heteronormative. It is not. I am only stating that we need to treasure human life as it is the most important value.
I am not saving life in hopes of saving life. What I am doing is that I am trying my best to save life. Human life is the most important value in today's debate. You have still not exactly proven why national interests are more important than life. If you say that my saving of life is bad, which you have done? What do you do? You still haven't proven.

Okay, you cite Kant and I have no clue how that's relevant to my point that you are causing "Other"-isation. You say there are no "ifs" in humanitarian imperative, citing someone who made a philosophical claim against my real-world impact ... it just doesn't hold as much water as you are giving it.

Whether or not you claimed that saving lives is heteronormative or not is irrelevant - the framework the aff world is working in is flawed because it is heteronormative. Saving life is bad - letting life end by nonintervention keeps dignity intact and conflict low because there is no "Other"-isation of the queer. YOU NEVER ATTACK THIS!

The aff has just cited random people with no credentials on any of the topics at all listed (Green 2015 ... okay, so what? You put sources used but never actually put a [1] in your case wheresoever so how am I to know where what was said ...) - disregard all of his attacks. The aff case doesn't provide a reason that we need to change the status quo, just that we can ... easily, vote neg and stop saving life and attacking the queer for being queer. Thank you.

I did not cite random people. I have cited people. If you have a problem, please check the sources I always posted with websites. I attacked this with many things. I said it was good that we should save life as an important value and that we should see that many national NGOs have done so to save the life, and we should continue because of the success.

Now, people, let's take a big picture.

If you can't understand, basically voting for aff will give an amazing world, where human life is valued the most, and that we are saving the common good. If you vote for negative, you will be not saving human lives and letting them suffer.
I have consistently proven that human life is the most important value in this debate, which it still is.

So with these reasons and many more, you should vote for the aff side today. Thank you.

`TheResistance
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
How does that K even work? How does saving lives enforce heteronormativity?
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
wait nvm you are Con.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
I'd be interested in taking this debate.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Then it'd be a better debate than if you had :^)
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
You don't want people ruining it. What if a troll accepts?
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
why.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
Might wanna close your debate.
Posted by Insignifica 1 year ago
Insignifica
Yeah... I'll accept.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
"a government" ...
Posted by Insignifica 1 year ago
Insignifica
Actually nah, I just realized the implication of the resolution.
"Prioritize" means that it's only if they're in conflict.
I'll be Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.