The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should help 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 67919
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Not a good idea, I think


I would like to begin with my rebuttal.

"Not a good idea, I think."

People think many things, which by itself means very little.

Now, we live in a society that grants inherent value to every human life. That means it is moral duty to aid at least partially the rights of a disadvantaged, or otherwise in need person.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to pro for accepting. I'll start with a kritikal examination of the following statement ("That means it is moral duty to aid at least partially the rights of a disadvantaged, or otherwise in need person.") from my opponent before going into more general responses.

== K Time Baby! ==

“To think to the self carnivally is to chart its transformation from a static state of identity to the fluctuating state of its perpetual becomings.”

It’s because that the aff restricts this becoming that I negate. My advocacy is that the AFF’s focus on responding to needs creates an axiomatic sub-conscious structure. Desire as traditionally understood is phrased as “I desire a cookie.” My advocacy redefines and rejects that conception and pushes it to it’s break through to redefine psychoanalysis.

== Section 1: Links==

The aff’s view of desire is wrong. The turn desire into something that is taught instead of something that is discovered and experienced.

First: Their focus on responding to need and that we must provide for material conditions and objects straighjackets desire. Massumi [1]:

  • “Desire is not desire for an object, except to the extent that whole attractors … are imposed on the body by reactive forces. It is not a drive … and it is not a structure … made to be these … is more the straitjacketing of desire … Desire is the production of singular states of intensity by the … nonlimitative bodies without organs … it is the plane of consistency as multiple cocausal becoming …, it is never a strictly personal affair, but a tension between sub-and superpersonal tendencies that intersect in the person as empty category. In an ethical context, it is the tendency of one of the states created by the interplay of bodies without organs to remain in existence or return to existence, not for merely reproductive ends, but in order to actualize its potential to increasingly higher degrees: …, a tendency of this kind was called a "desiring-machine." …”

Thus desire for objects or end goals is straitjacketing of desire.

Second: The AFF’s understanding of ethics is like a TV commercial. We are always condition to respond to need out of moral necessity. Massumi 2:

  • "Everywhere, the lifeless promise of mutual possession. Bodies mouthing the same touching refrains: "I do," "I am yours," "If you touch him I'll kill you." You will see, if you turn on the TV. You will see repeats — and commercials for home goods. You will see that the future has folded into the past. All of the endless variations on what it is to be human … that can be observed in the social field have folded into a limited grid of repetitive categories, which have folded yet again into the reproductive family unit. Reduction. … The TV screen is only one of many mechanisms for reducing the boundaries of the universe to the dimensions of a microcosm. They make the wife the husband's mother, and the boss his daddy: everything is always already reduced to categories that are then mapped back into a whitewashed childhood home with a comforting fire crackling in the den. The fifties never stop coming back …"

Thus the AC a) conditions people on what to desire and b) categorizes desire into static end goals.

== Section 2: Impact ==

This understanding of desire is the very cause of it’s repression. The AFF teaches us that everything is a visual fantasy and there is no real experience outside of lack and conditioning. This perpetuates the very molecular problems within ethical structures and negates all value in life. Deleuze & Guattari [2]:

  • "There is no sort of evolution of drives that would cause these drives and their objects to progress in the direction of an integrated whole, any more than there is an original totality from which they can be derived. … she conceives of them as fantasies and judges them from the point of view of consumption, rather than regarding them as genuine production. She explains them in terms of causal mechanisms … of mechanisms that produce certain effects …, and of mechanisms of expression …—an approach that forces her to adopt an idealist conception of the partial object. She does not relate these partial objects to a real process of production.—of the sort carried out by desiring-machines, … she cannot rid herself of the notion that schizoparanoid partial objects are related to a whole, either to an original whole that has existed earlier in a primary phase, or to a whole that will eventually appear in a final depressive stage … Partial objects … appear to … be derived from global persons; not only are they destined to play a role in totalities aimed at integrating the ego, the object, and drives later in life, but they also constitute the original type of object relation between the ego, the mother, and the father. … The question, … is that of the … nature of the production of desire. … she does not make use of partial objects to shatter the iron collar of Oedipus; … she uses them … .to water Oedipus down, to miniaturize it, to find it everywhere, to extend it to the very earliest years of life."

Thus, they put all investment of desire into partial objects that don’ have value but rather create experience as grounded in fantasies of what could be. This turns the aff because 1) they negate all value in life by putting all desire into the trap of partial objects and we then desire our own repression. This internal link turns the AC framework by negating the purpose of ethics in the first place. There is no point in deeming actions good or bad if life has no meaning. 2) It turns there case based on the metric they appeal to because they prevent the very possibility and creation of ethics because we do not think ethically but rather only think and crawl after the partial objects that destroys the creative creation of the subconscious. 3) It turns the AC contention because by focusing on needs and wants the AC destroys and negates the very values that they want to assist people in gaining.

== Section 3: Alternative ==

We need to reinvest the way we understand desire. Desire needs to be invested as subconscious experiences and producing and creating instead of understood in terms of “we want object x.” Only by truly revolutionary psychoanalysis can we allow for subconscious freedom. Massumi 3:

  • "Sometimes the tension grows to the breaking point, and a crisis ensues. … breakdown veers into breakaway, a line of escape back to the nonlimitative body without organs and the increased potential residing there. That is called "art" … the individual is joined in its breakaway by other individuals in its correlated population. The balance of power tips, mayhem ensues, a societywide crisis sets in. This is called "revolution" … These are instances of a molarity becoming-supermolecular, reactualizing its potential for expansive, inclusive syntheses in which the population as a whole sensitizes to the singularities of its individuals, resonating with more than against them, combining potentials and creating new ones rather than subtracting potentials already clamoring to express themselves. … A rebecoming-active of the body politic. An infusion of life. A breath of fresh air."

== Responses ==

His sole reasoning for affirming the resolution is that because society grants inherent value to human life, then we gain some kind of moral duty to help those in need.

First, this is specifically where he's linking into the Kritik.

Second, there's absolutely no warrant behind this at all.

Third, this doesn't even affirm. Just saying we have an obligation doesn't actually show that we ought to be helping people in need. I might have an obligation to try and stop a shooter who's about to shoot up a elementary school, even if that means I might get shot. Just saying that we have an obligation to other people is missing the link between having the obligation and performing on the obligation, and he's not saying why we should be doing the second part. This means that even if his argument makes sense, it isn't sufficient to affirm.

== Conclusion ==

My kritik is successfully negating the resolution by showing us that because of the affirmative's focus on helping people in need that they condition and repress desire, how this causes desire to collapse our subconscious experiences into meaninglessness and destroys the value of life, and how the only way to prevent this is to reinvest the subconscious as a creation of experiences. I'm also responding back to my opponent's affirming statement and shown how it's a bare assertion and how it doesn't actually prove the resolution true.

== Sources ==

[1] - Brian Massumi [Canadianpolitical philosopher and social theorist. Currently teaching at Université de Montréal, in the Communication Sciences Department. PHD in French literature]. A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia. MIT Press.
[2] - Giles and Felix [Illest mothafuckers in the philosophy game]. Anti-Oedipus


That was a very impressive argument just there. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's just 5:30 AM in Irish time. I would however, like to register a small complaint, a very small one indeed. You've used sources in the place of your own argument, without actually explaining the source material and instead copy-pasting it out and working off it. From the proper sourcing format, my opponent has been working with essay efficiency, but they've missed a much more important aspect of essays which any student can tell you; answer the question.

You see, the motion is "Should help people in need". While your response was impressive, it focuses on "Desire", which is not necessity. A need is something that a person will suffer detriment from a lack of. A desire is not. True, there is little ground on which to provide moral imperative for one to aid another who merely desires something rather than suffering by lack of it. But that is not this debate, and if it was, maybe you could have clarified that. Each of your sections addresses desire, and I have no shame in admitting they're damned difficult to comprehend. I will need you to explain several terms for me here too. What are the AC, the AFF and the Kritik?

Look, I'm sorry if you were expecting a full sourced answer, but I can at least explain in more detail why the need and the desire are different, and even accepting your argument, we can still be morally inclined to aid those in need. A need is something considered essential to the person, to the extent that its absence leads to a reduction in their quality of life. A desire is something that a person would be preferable to having but will still not suffer through lack of; it is a luxury rather than a necessity. A person will need and desire food. They will desire food that is pleasing to their taste, but it is the nutritional value they will suffer without. A person needs nutrition, but only desires sweet foods.

If one is in a position to aid someone in need (keeping in mind that of they were not in that position, to provide aid would place them in need as well), then to deliberately deny that person the aid would mean their inaction leaves them at least indirectly responsible for that person's diminished quality of life.

True, morals are a very subjective issue, and morals are defined by general consensus. But herein lies the consensus; an action which increases the overall quality of life of the population can be considered a morally good action. If one was to withhold aid (inaction is very much an action) from someone, assuming providing such aid did not diminish the shared quality of life between aider and aidee, would be considered an immoral action. Morals are standards of behavior, to be the founding of right and wrong, and so incline one to follow them.


Your detailed argument completely missed the point of the debate, which means I don't really have much to do but explain my argument in more detail, which I did. If someone is in need, which you can afford to aid without becoming in need yourself, then you would be indirectly harming that person by denying them aid, which would be immoral.
Debate Round No. 2


TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.


I won't make a second argument without allowing my opponent rebuttal; this is just to avoid forfeiting a round.
Debate Round No. 3


TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.


And that brings an end to the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.