Should help people in need
"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.
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==
First: Their focus on responding to need and that we must provide for material conditions and objects straighjackets desire. Massumi :
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:
Thus the AC a) conditions people on what to desire and b) categorizes desire into static end goals.
== Section 2: Impact ==
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 ==
== 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 ==
 - 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.
 - Giles and Felix [Illest mothafuckers in the philosophy game]. Anti-Oedipus
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.
TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.
TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.