The Instigator
josh363663
Pro (for)
Losing
49 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
65 Points

Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 12/21/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,811 times Debate No: 10538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (20)

 

josh363663

Pro

Lincoln-Douglas debate only please do not accept if you don't debate LD. At the bottom of the 3rd round please do not reply with an argument as there is no 2nr

The Geneva convention protects innocent non-combatant's from violence during war. However in today's post Cold War world more needs to be done to protect these innocents from harm when open war is declared less and less in favor of more subtle means of achieving goals, And it is for this reason that I stand resolved that Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy goals.
To begin I would like offer a few clarifying definitions.
Economic sanctions are according to Adam Winkler limitations on trade or access to markets enacted to encourage a target nation to behave in a way preferred by the sanctioning nations. A definitive characteristic of economic sanctions is that they are specifically intended to cause economic harm to another state. The basic idea is that "the burden of economic hardship imposed by sanctions will
become intolerable" to the citizens of the target state .
Ought implies a moral imperative and therefore a moral framework will be used for this round.
Foreign Policy Goals in short are the objective of the sanction a prime example is the anti-apartheid sanctions in South Africa as well as the sanctions placed on Cambodia in response to the actions of the Khmer rouge.
My value is morality. Because Ought is used in the wording of the resolution a moral framework is the only logical choice for this topic. Morality is the general execution of what is right as compared to what is wrong.
My criterion is respecting human life and this goes beyond merely preserving life while that is a large component of it one must also not devalue human life by treating it as a mere tool. Respecting human life has to be moral because if life had no value then decisions would not matter and therefore morals would not exist to judge if they are right or wrong.
Contention 1. Economic Sanctioning uses the suffering of the innocent citizens to achieve goals which have nothing to do with them.
A Sanctions main purpose is to harm the innocent civilians enough that they can no longer stand it and revolt against and overthrow their leaders or at least pressure them enough to the point where they crack and give in to the will of the sanctioning party. This is a spectacular example of people namely the innocents worth being reduced down to that of a tool to be used as the sanctioning body sees fit with no regard to the welfare of these innocents, and these sanctions are killing people over half a million Iraqi children under the age of five died because of the sanctions placed on Iraq according to the UN. To lend even more credibility to my claim I quote Adeno Addis in his article Economic sanctions and the problem of evil 2003
"The strong version of the moral argument is Kantian in its outlook. It objects to economic sanctions on the ground that often if not always sanctions target innocent civilians for suffering as a means to achieving a foreign policy objective contrary to Kant's categorical imperative that we treat "humanity, whether in [our] person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. The argument here is that it is morally unacceptable to impose suffering on innocent sectors of the target state, as sanctions do" Not only is the worth of the innocents being attacked by sanctions but human life as a whole is discounted, by negating we not only contribute to the suffering of millions but we destroy ourselves. I have shown that the practice of Economic Sanctioning devalues human life by using innocents as a tool. Devaluing life is disrespectful to it so the criterion falls.
Contention 2 Economic Sanctioning hinders humanitarian efforts.
A. Due to the Nature of the sanctioned countries those who have the least power and money are usually the ones being targeted by the policy that the sanction is trying to change, assuming the policy is of a humanitarian, and these people are usually hit the hardest by these sanctions. By passing these sanctions we are crippling the very people who share a common enemy with us and might even be friendly with us if we weren't starving them to death. Basic Logic states that its not a good idea to further impoverish the only opposition to the policy yo u are trying to get rid of. An example would be of the Anti-apartheid sanctions in south Africa. If William F De Klerk had not repealed the Apartheid by his own free will the blacks that apartheid oppressed would continue to suffer more than the government did due to the sanction and would eventually be completely unable to muster any show of force against their oppressors.
B. If the foreign policy goal is political as compared to humanitarian the morality of the sanction is even more suspect. In these instances the suffering of innocents is used by the sanctioning country even when the leadership is innocent of any crime other than disagreeing with the sanctioning body. An example of this would be the ongoing economic sanctioning of Cuba. Embargo were placed on Cuba not because of any human rights violations but because America dislikes Communism.
Hindering humanitarian efforts and aiding in the murder of innocents not only takes away human life but devalues it as not as important as political agendas and is disrespectful to life and once again the criterion falls.
As a brief under view sanctions are extremely detrimental to the sanctioning countries economy. According to Washington economist Robert O' Quinn during his first term President bill Clinton imposed sanctions on 35 countries that make up 42% of the worlds population and consume 19% of US exports. This immense loss of trade is simply not fiscally responsible.
And because of these reasons I can only urge an affirmative ballot.
cody30228

Con

I stand in negation of resolved: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I would like to begin with a few counter-definitions.
I accept Adam Winkler's definition of economic sanctions, that they are limitations on trade or access to markets enacted to encourage a target nation to behave in a way preferred by the sanctioning nations. I disagree, however, that the definitive characteristic of economic sanctions is intent to cause economic harm to the state to make life intolerable to the citizens of a targeted state. Many economic sanctions are used strictly to stop a certain nation from gaining a resource, such as enriched uranium.
I also disagree that ought implies a moral imperative. In the sense of the resolution, the agent of action is a government. Ought, in the sense of what a government ought to do, almost always refers to what "should" be done, or what is most beneficial. Furthermore, moral imperatives are not objective facts and cannot be debated. In other words, morals are largely subjective and we will always disagree on what is moral and what isn't. Also, my opponent defines morality as the general execution of what is right as compared to what is wrong. This definition is too vague to debate. What is right? What is wrong? Who decides? For this reason, and for the sake of debate, we must look at ought as what is most beneficial.
I would also like to provide a few observations.
O1) The resolution does not specify the exact agent of action. We must infer that the agent of action is government, because government is the only entity that possesses the capability to impose economic sanctions. Furthermore, the size of government is not specified. Economic Sanctions can be unilaterally or multilaterally imposed.
O2) The affirmative must prove that economic sanctions are always an "ought not" action. In other words, the affirmative must prove that something within economic sanctions makes them inherently an action that ought not be done. On the other hand, negative must prove the resolution untrue, or that economic sanctions are not inherently an action that ought not be done. Let me clarify: the world is not divided into "yes" and "no", but "yes" and "not yes". There are somethings that fall neither into "yes" or "no". Therefore, the absence of "yes" is not "no", but everything that is not "yes". So I do not have the burden to prove the resolution is inherently false, just that it is not inherently true.
My value for this round is national security. Again, the agent of action for this debate is a government. A government always looks to its own security as the paramount value, therefore, we should as well. Furthermore, national security is needed for nations to exist, and without nations, we revert back to the lawless state of nature without rights protection. This is an objective value, morality isn't.
My criterion for this round is a cost-benefit analysis. We must measure the benefits and harms of an action and make our decision from our conclusions. A CBA is needed for national security. Without making decisions based on the benefits and costs, governments would run the nation into ruin and no national security would exist. Also, a CBA is more quantifiable than respecting human life. One can clearly see what is beneficial, however, there is no clear line on what respects human life and what doesn't. Would killing an enemy combatant with the goal of protecting the lives of your family disrespect human life? What if you let an enemy combatant live and he kills your family, is that disrespecting human life? Clearly, a CBA can be used to evaluate the round, while respecting human life cannot.
I will provide my own contentions, and then attack my opponents contentions.
C1-) Economic Sanctions ought be done to stop the trade of weapons.
a) Direct sanctions on weapons
If a nation's foreign policy objective includes stopping another country from attaining nuclear weapons, the smartest course of action may be an economic sanction on enriched uranium. If the major nuclear-capable countries of the world were to impose multilateral sanctions on sole country, it would become almost impossible for the country to attain enriched-uranium. At the very least, it would take much longer for the country to attain the resource. A direct sanction on enriched-uranium will not cost the sanctioning country money, and it will not unfairly hurt the citizens of the sanctioned country. The sanctioning countries must have a wide enough monopoly on the dangerous resource for this plan to work. When such a situation does exist, direct economic sanctions should be imposed.
b) Indirect sanctions to stop attaining of weapons
A nation can use sanctions on other resources in the economy to encourage the sanctioned country to not attain weapons. Newsweek on November 29, 2008 gives an example of smart sanctions. "Hitting the economy more directly would force the mullahs to make a choice. Iran has profound economic vulnerabilities: it imports 43 percent of its gas. Its oil and natural-gas industries—the government's key source of revenue, which it uses to buy off its population—desperately require new investment and technology. Smart sanctions would force Iran's leaders to see the high costs of not changing their behavior." Again, a monopoly on a valuable resource is needed from some sanctions to work. In the case of Iran, smart sanctions on scarce resources would encourage the government to abandon pursuit of enriched uranium.
Now to attack my opponent's case
C1+) My opponent argues that sanctions harm the citizens, thus using them as a means to achieve a greater end. He uses Kant to say that humans should never be used as a means to achieve another end. The direct economic sanctions that I mentioned in my first contention sub-point A would not harm the citizens and use their suffering as a means to a greater end. If a country places sanctions on a single product, in this case a weapon or component of a weapon, how can the lack of a weapon hurt the citizens? Also, I would like to reiterate that this debate is not a moral debate but a practical debate. Just War theorists would claim that Kant is wrong (he is just a person, after all), and that it IS moral to hurt citizens to stop a larger war with more casualties. Affirmative would, obviously, disagree with the moral of Just War theorists. For this reason, we cannot argue that hurting citizens is immoral because many people would disagree with this claim. Unless my opponent can prove that the suffering of some citizens to stop a wide and more deadly war is always moral to everyone, it should not be accepted as an argument for the round.
C2A+) My opponent argues that sanctions further impoverish the resistance forces of some countries. We must remember that not all sanctions are smart. I would agree that stopping the trade of food to impoverished countries is a bad idea. Such as sanction would not have more benefits than harms and would not pass my own CBA criterion. That sanction ought not be used. However, a sanction against weapons going to the hostile government ought to be used. Also, sanctions could be put into place that allowed humanitarian aid from the UN or other countries. In most cases, the sanctioned government does not allow the humanitarian aid to pass into the country. For many years, the Sudanese government did not allow the UN to provide humanitarian aid to the region of Darfur. Do we blame the UN or Sudan?
C2B+) My opponent stresses that economic sanctions for political reasons will unfairly hurt citizens of the sanctioned country. I agree with my opponent that the sanctions on Cuba ought not be in effect. They have yielded little benefit at a higher cost. They fail to meet my CBA criterion. However, I did not and do not have the burden to prove that every economic sanction in history was beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1
josh363663

Pro

Im going res. analysis Neg Aff
Okay thanks for accepting the debate.
My opponent opposes the clarifying portion of my Sanction Definition with: Many economic sanctions are used strictly to stop a certain nation from gaining a resource, such as enriched uranium. However this is simply untrue. No country in the world sells weapons grade uranium to any country, therefore this is no more an economic sanction than the tendency of the US to not sell slaves. Uranium is sold in non-weapons grade form for the purpose of energy and medicine. Therefore his counterexample falls and you must accept my definition.

My definition of morality is adequately vague which is why we have a criterion. Morality is something that we determine on a case by case basis i give an example stating that respecting human life is moral therefore clarifying it sufficiently. Perhaps my opponent should familiarize himself with the purpose of the value and criterion. Also my opponent presents an entirely unwarranted claim saying that ought is utilitarian concept in all of the literature ought implies a moral obligation (dictionary.com) Therefore my RA stands.

I accept his observations.
His value is not at all adequate. Nat. Security is not at all inherently valuable like life or morality. He does offer some weakly pieced together argument for the extrinsic value of Nat. Security but never explains why state of nature is not good let alone warranting why security is necessary for nations to exist therefore we must reject his value.

his vc falls because his value falls. Also a cba is not reliable. It is impossible to determine with 100% accuracy the consequences of an action therefore we can't accurately decide on an actions morality. If we "believe" that the consequences of an action will be worth it but in the end an unforeseen consequence causes the cba to be skewed negatively will the action still be good. obviously not therefore we must use respecting human dignity through our own direct actions as a weighing mechanism because it is a definite criterion.

C1a-) this falls because weapons grade uranium is not legally traded anywhere therefore this should not be counted as a sanction.
C1b-) My opponent advocates crippling belligerent countries economies with sanctions but this once again runs counter to the criterion of respecting human life if we devalue human life then no matter how many lives we save it will mean nothing because any number of valueless things are worth nothing. Diplomacy and non economic sanctions are viable options. Also there is no such thing as a smart sanction. In Iraq chlorine was sanctioned because it could be used to make bombs but it was also needed for the purification of water this caused the death of thousands of innocents.
C1+)I dismantled the first part of his refutation about smart sanctions in C1b-. also Just War theoryin no way accounts for this. sanctions should be viewed like a war much like a siege. And just War theory tells us that killing innocent noncombatants is not just. Also my opponents unwarranted qualifier only stands if he can prove war is worse than the sanctions and this is not true the economic sanctions that were placed on Iraq (and were remarkably unsuccessful) caused 15 times the deaths that the entire Iraq conflict caused to date. Therefore his explanation using Just War theory completely fails on all accounts and should be disregarded.
C2a) My opponent once again brings up smart sanctions and aid however this does not work as I have already proven.
C2b)My opponent secedes this argument
Uv) I would like to point out that my underview is just that an underview and not part of any previous contention. It is an off-case off value argument.
My opponent drops my underview extend it across the flow.
My opponents case is wrought with logical inadequacies and nonexistent evidence therefore I must urge an affirmative ballot.
cody30228

Con

I will follow the same order as my opponent and add voters at the bottom.
My opponent defends his definition by saying that my "counter example falls and you must accept my definition." His reasoning is that "no country in the world sells weapons grade uranium to any country." However, this is incorrect. Syria has a "proposal for gradual exchange between low-enriched uranium and nuke fuel enriched at level of 20 percent" with Iran [http://sns.sy...]. Also, countries, like Russia, sells large amounts of low-enriched uranium [http://www.reuters.com...] which can be converted to high-enriched uranium, or weapons-usable uranium. "Proliferation experts say 1,000-1,700 kg of low-enriched uranium, if converted into high-enriched uranium, would be enough to make a bomb" [http://www.reuters.com...]. Therefore, it still stands that economic sanctions are used to limited resources to countries, as well as cause economic harm.
My opponent next defends his value of morality. He says morality is "determine[d] on a case by case basis". However, he misunderstands my argument against morality. You cannot clarify morality through a specific example and create a moral law. For example, my opponent argues that morality is respecting human worth. But this is not a universal statement. Some people would say morality is simply in "accordance with standards and good and right conduct." [American Heritage dictionary]. Again, too vague. Some people believe that doing drugs is immoral, while others don't. In regard to respecting human worth, people can disagree that people have inherent worth that commands respect. Obviously, Hitler (I apologize for the clich´┐Ż example) did not think that humans had universal worth to respect. Unless my opponent can prove, which he hasn't, that respecting human worth is a universal moral statement, he cannot use morality as his value.
My opponent also argues that ought must be a moral obligation because Dictionary.com defines ought as such. From Dictionary.com, ought is ALSO defined as "(used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers" [http://dictionary.reference.com...]. Clearly, ought is defined differently depending on the agent of action. As I stated last round, a point (O1) that was not refuted by my opponent, the agent of action is a government. Governments are NOT moral agents. Governments may adhere to some morals sometimes, but the ultimate goal of government is not upholding morality. Governments have the purpose of protecting the people within. Therefore, the government "ought" to do an action if it is beneficial to the people.
Onto my value. My opponent says that national security is not inherently valuable. Without national security, the country becomes open to invasion and destruction. If the country is destroyed, it becomes unable to protect the citizens and they are forced back into the state of nature. The state of nature is undesirable because no rights are protected and everyone's safety is in jeopardy. For this reason, people from the beginning of time have banded together to form societies. Since we want to protect our rights and safety, we avoid the state of nature. We form governments. Governments need security. Therefore, national security is inherently valued. Also, morality is not inherently valuable. Besides the fact that morality is fully subjective, I can act immorally and little harm be done. I may consider lying to be immoral. I may lie to my nephew that there is no more cake for him to eat. He doesn't eat cake after dinner. Very little harm, if any, is caused by my "immoral" action.
We cannot know the outcomes of our actions before we act. I will use my opponents own arguments against his VC. How do we know our actions will respect human worth? I may have that goal, but my actions to respect human worth may ultimately degrade it. Is your VC now invalid? The CBA Is a valid criterion because we have the ability to learn from past actions and predict future outcomes. For example, we can predict that launching a nuclear missile at China is probably not a good idea because the benefits definitely do not outweigh the costs. We use a CBA everyday as individuals. I eat healthy because I predict that the benefits outweigh any costs. Also, I would like to extend the dropped argument I made against my opponents VC. I said "there is no clear line on what respects human life and what doesn't. Would killing an enemy combatant with the goal of protecting the lives of your family disrespect human life? What if you let an enemy combatant live and he kills your family, is that disrespecting human life?" This attack was dropped and we can accept that his VC of respecting human life is not a sufficient criterion.
C1a-) I provided evidence in the RA that shows how enriched uranium is traded and can be converted for weapons use. Also, my opponent disregards the basis behind my argument. Enriched uranium is not the only tradable object that can be used as a weapon. Any chemicals that can be used for weapons, and even weapons trading themselves, could provide the reason to impose a sanction.
C1b-) My opponent's criterion of respecting human worth has been invalidated so his impact fails to link. A government can always use diplomacy first, and only economic sanctions after all other options have been exhausted. My opponent accepted my observations, and O2 said that my opponent has the burden to prove that all economic sanctions are bad. Therefore, he cannot use conditional circumstances, like what other options could or could not have been tried, to prove why economic sanctions always "ought not" be used. My opponent then says that smart sanctions do not exist. The source I provided in the previous round would disagree.
C1+) My opponent has two arguments on this contention. He says 1) just war theorists believe killing citizens is unjust and 2) the sanctions on Iraq caused more deaths than the war itself. Starting with 1), just war theory says citizen causalities should be avoided, but they are permissible if unavoidable. My argument was that some people may believe that civilian causalities are morally permissible; therefore, moral consequences are not weighable. 2) the sanction on Iraq is just example. Extend my O2 that my opponent accepted. It says that my opponent must prove that all sanctions are inherently unwanted. One example does not prove that sanctions will always cause more civilian causalities. Also, my opponent has not provided causality between the sanctions and civilian deaths.
C2a) My opponent has NOT proved that smart sanctions are not possible, and he has not refuted at all that aid cannot be given through sanctions.
C2b) My opponent shows a complete misunderstanding the observations he accepted with this argument. He argued that Cuban sanctions (or any other political sanctions) are wrong. My O2 said that he must prove that all sanctions ought not be used. He only proved that political sanctions ought not be used. I still have proved that smart sanctions (which my opponent has failed to prove how they don't exist) ought to be used.

Yes, I dropped the underview, it fails to link to my criterion in any way.

Reasons to vote neg:
1. The value of national security is more concrete and valuable than morality.
2. My opponent dropped my attack on his VC, proving that respecting human worth is impossible to determine, thus we auto. default CBA.
3. My opponent has not proved why sanctions on weapons are bad. Such sanctions will protect national security. They are extremely beneficial with little harms.
4. Smart sanctions can be effective and useful. My O2 allows me to prove that sanctions CAN work, not that all of them will. Smart sanctions have the capacity to be beneficial with little harms.

For these reasons I urge a negat
Debate Round No. 2
josh363663

Pro

My opponent gave several examples of the trade of low enriched fuel uranium, while I stated that no countries sell munitions high enriched uranium so his counter example is mute. The process of enriching fuel uranium to weapons grade uranium is a long and arduous one, also by restricting another countries access to nuclear fuel we are hurting their innocent citizens by denying the energy that is needed to survive therefore this example still violates my criterion. Next my opponent defines morality in his rebuttal, this is too late and should be disregarded but I will answer it. His definition is in "accordance with standards and good and right conduct." and I say that morality necessitates the value of life because if Life had no value than the decisions we made in life would not matter and therefore morality would not exist. he uses the counterexample of Hitler, however Hitler rejected morality he was a Nietzschean ´┐Żbermensch therefore he is irrelevant and the counterexample falls. Next my opponent
On his value my opponent explains why nat. security is extrinsically valuable but not intrinsically valuable a Value must be intrinsically valuable to be adequate that is the definition of a value so it falls.
Finally my opponent uses the example of a boy with cake however the morality of an action is determined by the action itself not its consequences so this is irrelevant.
On his criterion my opponent uses my argument against me however once again the deontological morality of an act is determine by the act itself and not it's consequences. and his example of the enemy combatant is mute as well because of what I have repeated over and over again we can not look at the consequences so his criterion falls. He says that we can use previous experience to predict future outcomes but still this is uncertain so it falls.
C1a-) his uranium example already fell and he uses the examples of chemicals that can be used in weapons however he drops my chlorine example. This is true for many different goods that have been sanctioned in the past.
C1b-)my opponent says I can't use examples of other options however I argue that Economic Sanctions are never appropriate and diplomacy, non-economic Sanctions can be used for better ends. Also when these fail military action is preferable to sanctions because fewer deaths are incurred and a vast majority of fatalities are military personnel who understand the risk they are incurring when they join the military, also Sanctions work less than a third of the time so it makes no sense to use such a option when there are superior alternatives. I do not say smart sanctions don't exist i say they don't work.
C1+) My opponent fails to explain why killing innocents is unavoidable especially when I have proven that the alternatives are so superior. and no one believes the senseless killing of innocents is morally permissible, also economic sanctions are inherently more dangerous than war because war can be targeted while sanctions hurt all people and cause disease, and malnutrition. Sanctions are also very ineffective so they tend to go on for very long stretches of time.
C2a) I already proved that smart sanctions don't work so this falls.
C2b)I have already proven why all sanctions ought not be used. I individually prove why each type of sanction my opponent proposes ought not be used and my opponent show a complete incompetency in arguing against them other than providing inadequate examples and asking rhetorical questions. The rhetorical style of Glenn Beck should not be emulated and you should vote down on this.
UV once again my opponent lacks any understanding of what an underview is. It is an of case attack so it would not link to his criterion.

voting issues
1. We can't determine the consequences of an action therefore it is impossible to accurately determine a cba
2. National security is not inherently valuable while morality is therefore you have to use my value.
3. The superiority of alternatives. Diplomacy and war are always more effective and moral

No argument made by opponent in the next round should be taken into account.
cody30228

Con

Good round, thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NItEMArE129 6 years ago
NItEMArE129
Guys, seriously, the VP is supposed to be vague. Justice, morality, societal welfare- these are the most common LD VP's because they are VAGUE. The idea is to link them to the resolution and show why we are concerned about it specifically. The VC is then used clarify how this case relates to the VP. The aff's assertion that protecting life is moral is fine. This is no longer a debate about the logistics of using morality, it's just how LD is formatted. Attacking the format makes no sense and any good judge will recognize that. Besides, is national security less vague than morality? What you're talking about is the social contract. National security isn't morally jusitified but the social contract is. And government legitimacy is what the Neg is talking about the whole round. You need to realize that LD is a moral debate and moral values are not only good, they are expected.
Posted by PastaBoy 6 years ago
PastaBoy
First off, great debate. Both sides demonstrated great debating ability. If I were allowed to vote, I would vote for the neg, solely based on voting issues. First off, don't ever cite dictionary.com as a source. Dictionary.com is just a website that gets definitions from other dictionaries.

I agree with negative's argument against the affirmative's value, solely because affirmative's attack on the argument was poor. Aff agreed with the vagueness of his value. I cannot vote for a debater who has an unclear value.
Posted by bballrobb7 6 years ago
bballrobb7
You base the rounds on a moral philosophy. This means that it has to do a little with the criterion. Alot of the times u face either a utilitarian framework or ends based vs deontology or means based. If you both use util then u weigh impacts. There are other moral frameworks that are based off the criterion, but these are most common.
Posted by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
also alorem you are incorrect at your assumptions of the nature of the criterion. Look it up. criterion is anything you so choose
Posted by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
bballrobb7: not about the value? in value debate? I have never watched toc rounds or any circuit debate, but all of the national tournament rounds I'v seen have actually dealt with the value, quite a bit.
If you remove the value premise and remove the criterion than what are you really left with?
Idk.... I'm genuinely curious as to if I misread that or if everything I'v ever learned, seen, heard of, or thought is incorrect.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Pro...I was curious about the order you used in your second speech. I would have presented defense for my case, attacked my opponent, then looked to voting issues and/or resolution analysis. Any particular reason you went in your order? I just have never saw that order before, and therefore don't understand it.
Posted by bballrobb7 6 years ago
bballrobb7
Alorenm- I have debated for 3 years, watched roughly 10 national circuit final rounds(including minneapple, glenbrooks, VBT, and TOC semis of 09) and I will be the first to tell you that you are wrong. A criteron can really be anything you want to uphold. It does not HAVE to be a moral philosophy because standards like respecting human worth is a deontological standard and works along with things like protecting human rights. I would say if anything that moral philosophies such as straight deontology or consequentialism is not a great standard because upholding a direct moral philosophy with no means to obtain it is hard. Saying "respect for human worth" is a great deontological criterion that gives you a clear means of obtaining it. Moreover, all of these finals rounds I have watch are not really about the criterion and on the national circuit nothing is about the value. Therefore, please don't try to tell me on this website or anyone especially that is new that "respecting human rights" cannot be a criterion because you are just WRONG.
Posted by Alorenm 6 years ago
Alorenm
Where did you learn how to debate? I know it can be different depending on where you come from, but here, LD debate is ALWAYS a morals debate. It is about what is morally right to do, while POLICY debate is whether or not it will work. Maybe it's just that we learned differently. However, I would like to debate one of the two who are debating this, if possible. I would like to neg.
Posted by cody30228 6 years ago
cody30228
Alorenm - I debated in LD for 4 years, and anything can be used as a criterion. Respecting human life is used a criterion in this way: Respecting human life is a measurement of how much morality is upheld. The more respect for human life we have, the closer we are to upholding morality. Therefore, as a judge, which ever debater better respects human life will better uphold morality.

In the same light, a CBA is also a criterion for national security. I argue that we must choose the most beneficial actions to have national security. Whichever side has the most beneficial actions will best preserve national security.

And can you tell us where we are factually incorrect please? As a "debater" you should know better than to make warrant-less claims.
Posted by Alorenm 6 years ago
Alorenm
Respecting human life is a value. You can tell a value by saying "boy, am I glad for my blank" Respect for human life fits right in there. Respect for human life is not a criterion.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
josh363663cody30228Tied
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 sagarous 6 years ago
sagarous
josh363663cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Vote Placed by savvyboy781 6 years ago
savvyboy781
josh363663cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Poachi 6 years ago
Poachi
josh363663cody30228Tied
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 Metz 6 years ago
Metz
josh363663cody30228Tied
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 tbtaylor 6 years ago
tbtaylor
josh363663cody30228Tied
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 ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
josh363663cody30228Tied
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 Extemp127 6 years ago
Extemp127
josh363663cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 bambiii 6 years ago
bambiii
josh363663cody30228Tied
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 cjl 6 years ago
cjl
josh363663cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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