Should reach nations help poor nations?
Debate Rounds (3)
I Accept and without further adeau, will begin by clarifying the round, then proceeding to attack my opponents due to him posting his argumenation in the first round.
IMPORTANT NOTE: PRESUMPTIONS
The word "Reach" does not have any connective meaning to the word "Nations". To confirm this, simply look up reach nation.
Due to this non-existent nation, you can already negate for 2 reasons:
1) Not defining a term gives Con the ability to, therefore any definition I choose will be the deciding factor in this round. (Meaning semantical definitions can be the standard without me losing conduct)
2) IF A REACH NATION DOES NOT EXIST, IT IS INCAPABLE OF HELPING A POOR NATION, AS SUCH THE RESOLUTION IS FALSE, AND NEGATION IS THE ONLY RATIONAL OPTION, BECAUSE AFFIRMING IS NON-EXISTENT
Reach: act of travel 
Nation: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status 
Help: to give assistance or support to 
"The main idea in our life is to make our world better than it is now. If people will not help each other in hard situations it will be a begining of the end. Money do not have a big value as other lives. When people became more lenient to each other, our life will be happier."
To help, one must be well off themselves. According to the Definition of reach, it can be implied that this "Reach Nation" Is traveling, which, is contradictory to the purpose of a nation, a set division or territory. With a conflicting definition put into place, a major dilemma occurs, meaning:
A- A nation on the move cannot help another nation, given that it is still advancing, or traveling.
B- No such "Nation" Exists that can travel, as a nation is permanently set into a territory, and may expand, but not technically travel.
2nd: Moral Agency:
My opponent brings up the argument that we as people must help each other, that life is worth more than money. This is strictly a morality based argument.
A- The resolution specifies a nation, meaning not 1 individual, but a group of individuals
B- Morality is subjective, the affirmative's entire attack is based around compssion and hospitality, which fall under morality, the difference between right and wrong. Subjectivity allows each and every person to have different moral values, no two people have the exact same values, as such, it can be implied that a nation cannot have a set vision of morality.
C- A nation's best interest is in it's people, if a nation's people are not doing well first, then other nations do not matter, as a government primary duty is to protect the people, and enforce order.
D- and most importantly- GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT MORAL AGENTS, THEY DO NOT HAVE PERSONHOOD, They are therefore, amoral, meaning a government cannot be "Moral" Or "Immoral". The govenment is an entity, or a machine, that does not look upon inherent moral values. Justice's correlation to morality is impossible to create at the Government level, due to the Gov not being a moral agent. It's safe to say laws can be moral, but the body of power that enforces these laws is inherently amoral no matter their actions. 
The Resolution is negated. Vote Con, as Pro is Non-Existent.
toka94 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited. Extend all arguments. I will allow him to make his case in the 3rd round.
toka94 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emj32 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.