The Instigator
toka94
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chicken
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should reach nations help poor nations?

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...
Chicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 985 times Debate No: 26692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

toka94

Pro

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.
Chicken

Con

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


Definitions:

Reach: act of travel [1]

Nation: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status [2]

Help: to give assistance or support to [3]

REFUTATIONS:

"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."

1st: Contradiction

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. [4]


The Resolution is negated. Vote Con, as Pro is Non-Existent.



[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://ordinary-gentlemen.com...





Debate Round No. 1
toka94

Pro

toka94 forfeited this round.
Chicken

Con

My opponent has forfeited. Extend all arguments. I will allow him to make his case in the 3rd round.
Debate Round No. 2
toka94

Pro

toka94 forfeited this round.
Chicken

Con

Full forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
toka94ChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF