The Instigator
memobookchick
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people 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 1 vote the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 19385
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

memobookchick

Con

So I'm not particularly versed in how to use Debate.org, or what common debate formats are used. But I do know that the debates I've seen over the current LD topic aren't very helpful... I've seen very few viable values. So, I would like to try a debate of my own with someone just to see how my scattered thoughts of my NEG case might go during a round. I'm just testing the waters here, and unlike most other states here in Missouri we get the topics a month late. Technically I'm still supposed to be in animal rights mode. I think most can understand why I'm so eager to move onto the new topic. xD Soo, I guess I should provide some ground rules for his debate, if the AFF (or Pro as most put it) disagrees with these or does not understand them then I'll gladly clarify or restructure them. Okay, so I'd like this round to be as similar to a normal round as possible. As far as I've seen CX periods are not possible in this format, so it'd be nice if we just went with the typical format except for the CX-ing. So, the format should go as follows:
First AFF constructive
First NEG constructive and attacks
AFF rebuttal and attacks
NEG rebuttal and attacks
AFF rebuttal and attacks
Now, I would like to again point out that I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm only used to debating in-round and not online... So, any advice or constructive criticisms are welcome. Thanks. :D happy debating!
larztheloser

Pro

First of all, let me welcome my opponent to the site, and thank her for the oppertunity to do this debate (recently I had to cancel a debate on this topic because my opponent's computer died). It's also good to be up against a debater with more experience in face-to-face debating - I swear that actually changes the whole dynamic of the debate. I've never done LD before (we use Australs style) but I'm happy to follow con's proposed format. To prevent me having an extra round, I will post no new rebuttal or constructive material in the last round. Sweet, now let's get on to the debate. Notice to plagiarism freaks: I am heavily plagiarising my argument from the last debate which was never completed, so please don't penalise me.

People can be "in need" for all manner of things. Right now I am in need of a better computer, a working TV, money and a large list of additional stuff. I'm not going to argue that you, or anyone else, should have a "moral obligation" to provide all these things for me. Therefore, I'm going to limit the standard of what qualifies as a person being "in need." Are you a civilian about to be killed for the personal pleasure of some tyrant? Congratulations, you qualify as being "in need." Are you being held as a sex slave? Well done, you're in need too. Have you been arbitrarily detained? Good, you also qualify. Do you long for a nice long vacation? So do I, but that is beyond the scope of this debate. Therefore, I will define "in need" as being people who have been denied commonly accepted human rights.

Why human rights? I believe in equality of opportunity - which is another way of saying, helping everyone who has less opportunity than you get as much as you have. I know I limited the scope of this debate to human rights, but if you don't have human rights, you can't have equal opportunity. Indeed, equality of opportunity can only be achieved with full equality under the law, which cannot be achieved when you afford certain groups "special" rights. If you do want a vacation or a new TV, a good place to start would be to fight for equality under the law, which will give you and everybody else a fair chance to earn one. Therefore, by helping human rights, we help people in need everywhere.

Human rights are pretty cool. That's fairly self-evident - all people are more or less equal, so we need to treat them more or less equally. That's called the principle of reciprocity, and it exists in almost every moral framework on this planet. Why? Because you can't have rights without justice, and you can't have justice without reciprocity - treating people differently based on their beliefs, for instance, would clearly be unjust. You cannot establish a right for a people without entitling those people to the right. Rights cannot be applied to one belief, or one race (et cetera), because the characteristic cannot be justifiably linked to the right, so all rights must be either contingent upon circumstance, or universal, and must be afforded to all those for whom the right is established. That implies that universal rights exist - our human commonality of circumstance demands that there must be some basic entitlements for all people.

As Kofi Annan put it: “Human rights are what reason requires and conscience demands. They are us and we are them. Human rights are rights that any person has as a human being. We are all human beings; we are all deserving of human rights. One cannot be true without the other.

Having established that all people are entitled to basic rights, we have also established that objective morality exists. Human rights are fundamentally moral rights (also known as natural law), because they are not specific to a jurisdiction - they derive not from some government signing a piece of paper, but from our common and universal condition. In addition, they are objective, because they apply in exactly the same way to everyone. There is no contingency. So if there are objective, moral and universal rights out there, we are morally obliged to defend them. This can be shown by exclusion of the alternative - if we had no duty to defend the rights of others, other's rights would not be defended, and thus they would not be entitled to the right, breaking the premise that they are rights.

Enforcing universal human rights helps the victims of human rights abuse - the ones "in need". We are the individuals. We hold this obligation as self-evidently as we hold human rights. Doing nothing is doing something. If you stand idle while watching somebody torture some civilians, you are party to that torture, and you are culpable. We cannot allow human rights violations to continue in the world. Denying a moral duty to assist people in need of assistance for human rights violations is both a denial of all rights and a denial of all justice. Rights and justice are pretty cool too, but I doubt my opponent will deny them.

I hope that makes my argument reasonably clear. The motion stands.

I wish my opponent the best of luck and look forward to reading her constructive case.
Debate Round No. 1
memobookchick

Con

memobookchick forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Pro

Not again. ):
Debate Round No. 2
memobookchick

Con

memobookchick forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Pro

Vote pro people!
Debate Round No. 3
memobookchick

Con

memobookchick forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Pro

Read the comments, especially the very first one. Yeah.
Debate Round No. 4
memobookchick

Con

memobookchick forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Pro

Larztheloser doesn't forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by memobookchick 5 years ago
memobookchick
I am so sorry to cause you to have yet another dud round. But through a series of annoying events I wasn't able to post, mostly having to do with a horrible head cold and the recent Thanksgiving weekend. Thanks for replying to my initial request for a debate anyway. :) seeing a put together AFF case was rather helpful for my upcoming tournament this weekend. So thanks, and vote pro. xD I hope you win many worthwhile and challenging debates in the future. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by OldIronGuts 5 years ago
OldIronGuts
memobookchicklarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Derp