The Instigator
ThePhilosophersDeduction
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,914 times Debate No: 21187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

ThePhilosophersDeduction

Pro

*Sources should be cited inside the arguments, no notes to view sources.

A glass is placed on a table containing one part water and one part air. A well-known proverb states that an optimist would say that the glass is half full, while a pessimist would say it is half empty. However, a realist would say that there is only so little water to be discussed because according to the Great Lakes Invitational Conference Association (GLICA), 1.1 billion people in the world have no access to any type of improved drinking source of water.
It is because I agree with the realist in this situation that I must affirm today's resolution: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.
The Value I will be upholding in today's debate is justice which is the quality of being fair and reasonable. Justice balances the rights of every individual. Justice should be valued above all other possible values because when debating human rights, we need to be both fair and reasonable.
My value of justice is supported by the criteria of allowing equality of opportunity. In order to be just, we must be afforded the chance to accomplish the same exact things. By allowing every human to have the same opportunity to the most basic necessity to life, we allow a better chance to obtain true justice. Essentially, by allowing situations which would help equalize the opportunity in life of all people, we can allow for justice to take place.
Contention 1 - not being given access to drinking water as a human right impedes an individual's ability to receive an education; thus, limiting the equality of opportunity which is not just.
1.We should not base the opportunity that those have to education solely off of how much water they are able to purchase. According to an article by the Water Project, lack of clean water has serious effects on student's academic performance and attendance rates. The lack of safe water can cause even the best students to lose momentum as they deal with stomach pains and diarrhea from disease and hunger. We know that access to clean, safe water changes lives. For example, after a well was installed for a village in Kenya, "girls returned to school, women began small businesses, men were no longer too sick to work. Health returned and children grew up to be productive members of their community. Access to clean, safe water isn't an end, it's a means. If we provide water to those who cannot afford it, we allow the opportunity to education. From education, the children are able to work and provide for their families, and ultimately, survive.
2.If children and adults alike in impoverished countries have to spend 8 hours a day just to collect water, they are not able to receive an education, and therefore will not have the same opportunities as those who can access drinking water. Students miss class to go fetch water, or to care for sick parents or siblings. In many places HIV/AIDS has already caused a large percentage of children to become orphans, requiring students to drop out and find work to provide food and care for younger siblings. If teachers are sick, classes get cancelled for all students. Schools cannot run programs if they cannot provide water to students, faculty and their families. If schools in these countries cannot afford to buy water, just as the citizens cannot, they cannot provide the education sufficient to provide equality of opportunity. This is clearly not just, because those that have access to drinking water have a far better chance at education and are therefore awarded with more opportunities.
Contention 2 - a lack of drinking water has a server impact on personal finances, limiting equality of opportunity and ultimately justice.
1.According to a document dated July 14, 2011 by Irene !hoa�s, when weighing access to drinking water as a human right or a commodity, "it is suggested that the inclusion of livestock be investigated" as well. In areas such as Namibia, where livestock play a monstrous role in the income of much of the population, we must realize that if these people are unable to pay for water, their livestock can suffer dehydration, leading to death. When the livestock die, so do the chances the Namibians have to make the income they need. Since the dawn of time humans have used livestock to make a living. Making a living in the world is something that everyone must be able to do in order to survive. If water was valued as a human right, it would be provided to these people, who need it the most, and allow them the equality of opportunity to personal finances.
2.If the access to drinking water was valued as a commodity, we see a snowball effect where the lack of potable water leads to the lack of income. Because the people in Namibia cannot afford water, they cannot keep their livestock alive, and lack the ability to provide for themselves, and their family. If these people cannot provide for themselves and their families, it is evident that they will only contribute to the statistics of those 1.1 billion people that will die if access to drinking water is not valued as a human right. However, if water was truly valued as a human right, these people would be able to earn the income that would allow them to live, and give them the equal opportunities in matters of personal finance.

Contention 3 - access to drinking water as a human right gives an individual the best equality of opportunity for health.
1.Water is essential to life. If anyone is unable to obtain potable water, or cannot afford to buy it, ultimately, they die. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), "water makes up between 50% and 70% of an adults total body weight. Regular top-ups are required to balance the loss of water through urine and sweat." If we are unable to balance this loss of water, we suffer from dehydration. The British Dietetic Association advises that we should consume 2.5 liters a day to remain healthy. In countries where potable water is hard to come by, as is money, the population is that much more likely to die of dehydration. If water is not provided to people in these very situations, it will end up in dehydration genocide. Not only will this genocide be worse than the one conducted by Adolf Hitler, but it is easier to solve for. By valuing the access to drinking water as a human right, we are able to sustain life, giving the equal opportunity to health.
2.If the access to drinking water is valued as a commodity, all of those who cannot afford it will resort to unclean and unsafe water. When they do this they are willingly letting bacteria into their body. According to an article written by Ashley Seager in The Guardian, dirty water kills 5,000 children a day (that's 1,826,250 people a year!) across the planet. When one cannot pay for water in a region of the world where the access to drinking water is a commodity, they will search out even the smallest source of free water, no matter how dirty and contaminated it is. These 5,000 children a day are dying because in the act of collecting water, they take a few sips, desperate to grasp onto life. Naturally, the dirty water contains bacteria, and the children die of a multitude of diseases. However, the children don't die immediately; they die after they get the water back home, after the rest of their family has had some. Dying slowly by the multitude of diseases in the water is just as cruel, if not more, of a death as dehydration. If these people cannot afford water, they most certainly would not be able to afford medicine to make themselves healthy again. We can see that by valuing the access to drinking water as a human right, we achieve justice in that all humans will be able to get the potable water they need to survive. If we force them to buy water, that they cannot afford, we write the death sentences to entire countries.

I now turn it over to con, and look forward to an educational debate.
Grape

Con



Introduction:



Thanks to ThePhilosophersDeduction for offering this challenge. I've made a few occasional returns to DDO, but often forgotten about my debates because of how busy I often am! But I've had very little in the way of writing this semester and I don't want to be rusty when final papers roll around, so I thought a philosophical debate was in order.



Opening Comment/Analysis:



Debate ultimately turns on the truth value of the resolution. If the resolution is demonstrated to be a true statement, then the debate goes to Pro, and otherwise it goes to Con. Hence, because the property of truth would not apply to it, a resolution like, “How are you doing today?” or “Wow!” could never be the resolution of a debate, and if it were, it would constitute an automatic defeat for Pro. I will argue that the resolution of this debate is in fact a resolution of that type.



In order to demonstrate this, I will defend just one contention: that moral emotivism is true



For LD purposes, my value is truth, and my criterion is also truth (since there does not seem to be a way of evaluating “how true” something is, it just is or it isn't.)



Contention I: Moral Emotivism is True



BBC gives a simple definition of emotivism: emotivism is the view that moral statements do nothing more than express the speaker's feelings about the issue.



I will defend this claim with a two part argument. First, I will argue that objective moral values do not exist. Then I will argue that emotivism is the only other way to make sense of moral statements.



Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist:



A value as such cannot be objective. While it is a fact of the world that I value ice cream, my valuation of ice cream (that is, my thought that ice cream tastes good) is subjective. The statement “ice cream tastes good” may be true relative to me, but false relative to someone else. Independently of any subject, it simply does not make sense to debate the statement “ice cream is good.” So objectively, such values do not exist.



A moral realist, however, will probably think that moral statements are something stronger than this. Could moral truths be facts of an abstract sort, like the facts of mathematics? I think that the answer is no. In order for something to be a fact of the world, it must correspond to the world in some way. Mathematical truths are instantiated in the laws of physics. If it were not the case that the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumstance is pi, then the world would assuredly be a very different place. It would be incomprehensible if it could exist it all. But suppose that some statement of ethics that a moral realist held to be true was actually false. What would be different about the world? It seems that nothing would change at all. So if there is no difference between a statement being true and it being false, does it even make sense to speak of it being true or false? There would be no way to detect the difference by appealing to any evidence since it would all be the same in both cases, and so there is no way that we could ever know objective moral values even if they did exist. Accordingly, we should reject moral realism. This alone is enough to warrant rejecting the resolution as false, though I will go on to argue further that it is not even admissible as a resolution.



Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:



So when people say that we should or ought do this or that, they might think that they're making a statement of an abstract kind, but such statements are not coherent. So what do they really mean? It makes the most sense to say that they are simply expressing their emotional preferences. People feel emotions like concern, empathy, and happiness, as well as jealousy and indignation, that make them think that things should be a certain way. We feel joy when we improve the lives of others, and we feel outrage when we see unfairness and injustice in the world. These feelings are the basis of moral statements. When we say that we ought to help others, it might be a pragmatically true statement if we both share the same values. But it is not objectively true any more than it is objectively true that we should eat ice cream. There is no principled reason why everyone must agree to this, it is only relative to our subjective experience.



So, emotivism is the correct doctrine for ethics.



Conclusion:

It should be clear what follows from this. The resolution is a statement of ethics, and it can therefore be reduced to an expression of the authors feelings. It is not admissible as a resolution for a debate any more than a statement like “Yum, ice cream sure is great!” or “Bleh, dirt does not taste so good!”



The resolution cannot be true, and it does not even make sense to speak of its being true. The debate goes to Con.



Rebuttals:



The resolution cannot possibly be true, so no sound arguments can be given in support of it. The truth of Pro's contentions are not at issue, the question is whether they could lend support to his thesis. But how could a statement about the conditions of people on our small planet, a mote of dust in the cosmic sky, lend evidence to a statement of ethics, which must stand beyond space beyond space and time itself? Accordingly, it may well be the case that people are better off in various ways in they have access to water. These are simple facts of biology and sociology. They do not and cannot make a statement of ethics true.



Therefore, I concede that all of Pro's contentions insofar as they make statements of empirical fact. Insofar as they refer to ethics, the above argument applies.



Debate Round No. 1
ThePhilosophersDeduction

Pro

I thank Con for accepting my debate, and look forward to an educational debate.

Con claims that this is a debate that will "constitute an automatic defeat for [me]." However, I would like to negate this immediately. And prove that this is not a voting issue. If a resolution was brought up that would be impossible to win, there would be no need to debate it. This resolution advocates a change to the status quo, but that does not mean that it is impossible. The world could not progress if an automatic defeat for the Pro was valid.

Con would also like to say that his Value is truth, and his criterion is truth. The two do not link because they are the exact same thing. Of course you can achieve truth through truth, but it does not work for an LD style debate, as the criterion needs to be something that will bring us to the value. Truth does not bring us to truth, it can be a value or criterion, certainly not both.

Response to Contention 1: Moral Emotivism is True.

I concede to my opponents definition of emotivism.

a. Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist:

Con claims that my value (if I understand his argument correctly) is not valid. He claims that it needs to be valued by the entirety of the world to be considered true. However, a value is not supposed to be fact. If values were facts, there would be no debate, and if values had to be facts to debate, the claim contradicts itself. A value is what I personally value in the debate, and how I achieve that value with my contentions and criterion. Con claims the resolution to be in his favor already without actually supporting a valid argument other than that I should not even be debating this with a value due to it being morally subjective. LD debate (the debate type we are using) requires a value as a voting issue. Without a value, there is nothing to debate.

b. Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:

Again, the Con says the same thing in that we should not even be debating this because the default is to them. "Emotivism is the correct doctrine for ethics." By saying this, Con is still claiming that without emotivism we cannot debate ethics. But really, Con claims that I should not be debating this at all because it is not correct to do so with a value. Values are required, as I said above. Without a value we do not have a basis for voting in this debate.

In the Conclusion, Con again repeats that the debate goes to them simply because the resolution is not true. If this was the case, UIL would not have decided on the topic. Essentially, this was written to be debated, and Con saying it will default to them no matter what is said is unfair to the Pro, and un educational as true arguments cannot be provided.

Rebuttals: This debate is not of ethics only. I've already refuted that Emotivism in unfair and un educational to this debate and should be thrown out. Con groups my entire case and concedes to it all, with the one argument that it cannot be debated. The resolution itself is not what is being debated against, it is the value and criterion. As Con does not even have appropriate or linking value and criterion, the vote must go to Pro.

On-Case:

I extend all of my arguments, as Con has not sufficiently refuted any of them.
Grape

Con


Introduction:



The Pro response was pretty scattered across the different subtopics and got repetitive, so to avoid repeating myself in my responses I am going to adopt a new mode of presentation. Pro offered basically no philosophical arguments and made his entire case based on the structure of the debate. In particular, he tries to hold me to rules that were explicitly nonbinding or that were never stated. I am concerned that he does not see the difference between the framework of the debate and the philosophical framework of the discussion. After taking care of some basic issues, I will go over my claims from the previous round and justify why they still stand, and then I will address the principle arguments that Pro has made.



On Value/Criterion:



I was not required to have a value or a criterion. I think that the whole concept is nonsense. I chose “truth” to be my value to emphasize that fact that I am making a non-normative argument. All I care about is the factual veracity of my contentions. If that is understood, I might as well drop my value/criterion entirely because it's irrelevant to my argument. There is no need for values in making a claim about the structure of reality.



On the Normative Presuppositions of Debate:



The point of a debate, as I stated in the previous round, is to establish whether or not something is true. When people disagree about some fact and want to determine who is right, they each present reasoning and facts that support their conclusion. Debate can only take place when the matter in question is indeed a fact. If the topic is “Ice cream is delicious” there can be no debate, because it is not an objective statement. Ice cream is delicious to some people, but not to everyone. Those who don't think it is could never be rationally persuaded to change their minds.



Throughout this debate, I have kept this point constantly in mind. Pro instead endorses the opposition: he says that we can debate only with values. But values have nothing to do with the topic of many debates! How could be debate science or mathematics if values, not facts, were important. Should be believe that it is possible to exceed the speed of light because that would help us achieve things we value? Of course not! Our values have nothing to do with what is true.



My Arguments:



Contention 1: Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist:



Pro has not given any philosophical arguments why this is not so. I have stated that no physical evidence in principle could lend evidence to a claim about abstract moral statements, so there is no way that we could come to know them, and therefore it is useless to posit their unknowable existence. I have also said that an alternate world in which such values did not exist would be the same as ours in every perceivable way, and that therefore objective values are meaningless. These arguments stand unless challenged. Because objective moral values do not exist, the resolution must at least be false (though I think it is worse than false).



Instead of challenging these arguments, Pro appeals to the rules of the debate. I will explain below why this is not a valid response.



Contention 2: Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:

In the previous round, I argued that moral statements are really just expressions of the speaker's feelings. This explains what people really mean when they talk about morality. An expression of someone's feelings cannot be the resolution of a debate, so the debate must default to Con. Saying “such and such ought to be valued” is the same thing as saying “ice cream ought to be eaten.” It might be good or bad for a particular subject, but with no subject at all it is a meaningless statement. It is nothing more than a reflection of our human tendency to belief that our subjective preferences apply to everyone.



Pro once again gave no counterarguments against this position and just said that it should not be allowed.



My Responsible to Pro's Rebuttals:



Re-Rebuttal 1: L/D Debate Requires Certain Rules



No rules were stated in the debate. In the comments section, I asked Pro is there were any rules and he specifically named the following:

“Essentially, in your first argument you will present your own case, and rebut mine, of course. All rounds following will be strictly rebuttals and no new arguments may be presented. “

I have fully followed that format. No other rules were given. It is not my responsibility to figure out every nuance that Pro wanted me to follow but neglected to state. So I don't particularly care if my value and criterion don't link, whatever that means, because I'm making an argument that's not about values and I was never told that I had to do that. As I said above, I only included that to clarify that my argument was based on facts, not values.



Pro has brought the unstated rules of the debate against me in a deeper way, too. He has said that my argument that values do not exist is not acceptable because the rules of the debate require him to have a value. Well, it's really not my fault that the rules that Pro chose and did not tell me about require him to make an argument that I think is unsound. I think that L/D debate is seriously broken so that, depending on the burden of proof, either Con automatically wins or the debate automatically goes to a tie. The reason I think this should be obvious: if the format of the debate requires you to defend a value and all values are in principle indefensible, then you are in a serious predicament. The fact that Pro chose this broken form of debate is not my concern. Could he have chosen a resolution about math, a format the required him to make mathematically incorrect arguments, and then objected when I gave correct arguments?



Re-Rebuttal 2: UIL Would Not Chose A Broken Debate Topic



Blatant appeal to authority. UIL can make a mistake.



Re-Rebuttal 3: Emotivism Is Unfair/Uneducational



Pro says that he has, “refuted that Emotivism in unfair and un educational...” Complaining that an argument is unfair or uneducational does not constitute refuting it. If emotivism is philosophically correct, a contention that Pro has made no attempt to challenge, then it obviously should not be thrown out! The only reason it could be considered “unfair” is because Pro has willingly pigeonholed himself into a very limited range of arguments. But even now, it isn't unfair. All Pro has to do is give arguments for why he thinks that emotivism is false and his ethical framework can carry! Instead, he has neglected to debate with me at all and has just said that my perfectly reasonable philosophical arguments can just be dismissed because if they were true it would have negative consequences for the debate format. If he's going to use L/D debate format, shouldn't he at least have philosophical arguments to defend it? Instead of letting his philosophy justify the debate format, he's trying to let the debate format justify his complete lack of philosophical argumentation.



And in any case, I think that this example could be quite educational (though that is totally irrelevant to the debate). There is certainly something to be learned about what kinds of claims certain debate formats assume and how those formats interact with the philosophical arguments of the debate.



Pro's affirmative arguments:

I continue to concede all of Pro's facts. In round one, he just rallied off facts about thirst in the world. As Hume said, you can't get an “ought” from an “is.” His entire argument is one big category error.



Conclusion:



Pro has made no actual challenges to my claims whatsoever. Instead, he has said that they would break the debate format. Well, if he wants to endorse L/D debate, he has to show that nihilistic arguments won't break it. The method of debate must be supported by the philosophy, not the other way around. As it stands, my arguments should just be considered extended because Pro's responses have been categorically off: they are not even the type of statements that could refute them.

Debate Round No. 2
ThePhilosophersDeduction

Pro

I would like to point out that in the comments of this particular debate, I have stated that I will be following UIL LD format. If the Con does not follow this form, he presents no ground for me. Even if he is unsure about the format, or how to debate in this style, he has every resource out for him on the internet to learn. All Con's arguments about framework of this debate will be thrown out. Even Con says it himself, this is a philosophical debate. However, Con does not realize that philosophical debates do not need strictly facts. Values are the prime voting issue. Again, I had made it clear this will be UIL LD format. All Con's arguments about framework of this debate will be thrown out.

This includes: "On Value/Criterion" and "On the Normative Presuppositions of Debate"

On Con's Arguments:
"Contention 1: Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist:"
I do not need to give philosophical arguments as to why this is not so, because simply enough, it is not the point of the debate. Again, this is a UIL LD formatted debate as I stated early on. Con brings up an "alternate world" where objective values are meaningless, however, my case is strictly real world, as I thought would be obvious. We are talking about Earth, and the status quo. (Again, LD format). A resolution cannot be considered false without providing evidence to support that claim. Con proposes no such evidence. What we see here is Con sharing why this is not even a debatable topic. This is again an LD format debate, and this argument will be thrown out.

"Contention 2: Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:"
Again, Con ignores the format of the debate and argues that this should not be debated at all. I extend my previous arguments on this contention and the previous.

"Re-Rebuttal 1: L/D Debate Requires Certain Rules"
I did not only state the format of what arguments will be given in this debate, but that it is UIL LD format. Thereby, this argument will be thrown out as well.

The debate can go to either Pro or Con, it is not defaulted in any way. The vote is on how you achieve your value with your criterion (yet again, LD format).

"Re-Rebuttal 2: UIL Would Not Chose A Broken Debate Topic"
UIL did not chose a broken debate topic, as both sides have one countless arguments at specific debate tournaments. You can view this on the UIL website itself.

"Re-Rebuttal 3: Emotivism Is Unfair/Uneducational"
Con says that this argument is not unfair, but yet again, extend my arguments. Con has given himself too much ground in this debate for not following LD style.

"Pro's affirmative arguments"
Con somehow misunderstood the resolution somehow saying that "you can't get an "ought" from an "is."" The fact is the access to drinking water is not a human right, my argument is that it should be. Again, Con's arguments will be thrown out.

Extend all of my previous arguments as Con has yet to follow correct LD debate format and did not refute my case, not make any claims that water should only be considered a commodity. In all essence of this debate the vote is on who presented their side (whether or not water should be a human right), and that vote goes to me.

For all of these reasons, please vote Pro in today's debate.
Grape

Con


Introduction:



In the previous round, I suggested to Pro that he try to rebut my philosophical arguments using some philosophical arguments of his own. Because I tried to win the debate using only philosophical arguments, and because my arguments were built upon each other, all he needed to do to win the debate was show I was wrong about one point. Instead, he continued the strategy from last round of trying to win on technical rules that were never introduced. I still have to do a kind of philosophy to explain why this is a cheap trick rather than a sound argument, but this is not the kind of philosophical debate I had hoped for. Pro gave a well organized response, so I'm going to follow his format.



First, though, I need to discuss the throwing out of the “On Value/Criterion" and "On the Normative Presuppositions of Debate" sections. These were just comments on my philosophical views about the debate that the audience was supposed to keep in mind. Asking to have them thrown out is like trying to throw out my introduction. Hopefully, you will find them persuasive. Whether or not they are accepted must rest on our debating of them.



Pro made the same mistakes in trying to counter them as last round. He wrote, “Even Con says it himself, this is a philosophical debate. However, Con does not realize that philosophical debates do not need strictly facts. Values are the prime voting issue. Again, I had made it clear this will be UIL LD format.”



It is true that debates do not need to be only based on fact. My arguments before are to that effect, but they are not presupposed. My only claim here is that debates can be only about facts. This is the case of any debate that doesn't concern ethics. My metaethical argument is not itself based on values, it's only about values, so I am not defending any values, which is fine. To say that a debate requires values would make it impossible to debate anything besides ethics. Pro has never answered this very serious objection. Apparently, there be no scientific debate in his view.



He also did not make it clear what “ UIL LD format” was. There is nothing about this in the debate, and in the comments he said that this meant that no new arguments could be introduced after round 1. That was all I was told, and that was only because I had the courtesy to ask. He also said he would “prefer” that it be followed, he did not require it.



Contention 1: Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist



Pro rehashes his old argument that he's not require to debate philosophy, and that therefore all philosophical arguments go to him by default. If this debate is not about philosophy, why can't be presuppose my unstated philosophical assumptions instead?

What we then see is the glimmer of a philosophical argument from Pro. He says:



“Con brings up an "alternate world" where objective values are meaningless, however, my case is strictly real world, as I thought would be obvious. We are talking about Earth, and the status quo.”

Indeed we are. Possible world semantics are just a tool for thinking about how something might be different by imagining another world in which everything is the same but the thing in question. My argument was that in another world just like ours where a true moral statement is false, there are no observable differences. Therefore, we have no way of knowing in our world whether or not a moral statement is true. For all we know, we might actually be the other world! This does not require that other worlds actually exist, it's just a thought experiment.



Contention 2: Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:



Pro extends his argument. I also extend my argument. Pro has given no arguments to the contrary to what I said in round 1, so this argument should be accepted by default. To recap, I said here that moral statements are expressions of the speakers feelings, and that therefore they are not debatable.



Re-Rebuttal 1: L/D Debate Requires Certain Rules:

It is Pro's responsibility to explain the rules of the debate. It is normally required that this be done in the actual debate, not in the comments. When I asked him to tell me the rules, he gave me one sentence. It is not my fault that he did not explain further.



Note that in round 1, he could have posted a link to L/D rules and said we would be following them. He did not even cite any of his claims about the rules throughout the entire debate. For all we know, he could just be making these rules up out of the blue. A commentator on the debate adds:

“To write a case in a Lincoln-Douglas form, you do not necessarily need a value. Having a value/standard is only one way to weigh the round. There are others, such as burdens. Other such types of cases don't need values, such as disadvantages, kritiks, and theory/topicality. All of those are commonly run cases on the TFA State and National level circuit, yet none have values or standards. For a regular LD case, a value and standard is the general way to go. But it isn't NECESSARY to have a value/standard for LD.”

I don't know anything about LD debate, but that person's comment seems to validate my position.



Re-Rebuttal 2: UIL Would Not Chose A Broken Debate Topic:

Pro says, “UIL did not chose a broken debate topic, as both sides have one countless arguments at specific debate tournaments.” This is still an appeal to authority because it assumes that the debaters always use the best arguments and that the judges are never wrong. It's possible to lose a topic you could win automatically by not pointed out why you win automatically.



Re-Rebuttal 3: Emotivism Is Unfair/Uneducational:

I extend my argument. All Pro says is that I didn't follow some unspecified rules. I already addressed this.



Pro's Affirmative Arguments:

“Con somehow misunderstood the resolution somehow saying that "you can't get an "ought" from an "is."" The fact is the access to drinking water is not a human right, my argument is that it should be.”

Should is just another word for ought, so Pro's explanation does not help. This is confused a bit by the fact that under this formulation, Pro is making a double moral argument: that a moral statement is false, and that it should be true. I concede Pro's arguments because no amount of facts about lack of access to water are going to change what is morally true. If Pro concedes that, “ the access to drinking water is not a human right” (a pretty preposterous thing for him to say in this debate, bordering on a concession!) then the fact that people are thirsty is not going to make it a human right. All that says is that those people's rights aren't being violated. You need normative arguments to establish a moral claim. Pro's argument might be based on the underlying assumption that people are entitled to things that will make them better of, but cf. My above argument.



Finally, Pro says, “Extend all of my previous arguments as Con has yet to follow correct LD debate format and did not refute my case, not make any claims that water should only be considered a commodity.”

My only burden as Con is to establish that the whole resolution is false. If there was a specific alternate resolution, Pro should have specified. The phrase “instead of” in the resolution is not strong enough to imply this. What is means is that Pro must argue:

1. The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right.


2. The access to drinking water ought not to be valued as a commodity.



In order to negate (P & ~Q) I only need to demonstrate ~P or Q, I do not need to demonstrate both. So I have fulfilled my burden.



Voting Points:




Conduct: Con



All Pro did for the entire debate was try to get my arguments thrown out based on rules I was not made aware of.



S&G: Tie



Arguments: Con



My philosophical arguments went untouched except for a few feeble objects. I demonstrated why Pro's arguments were irrelevant and he did not have a cogent reply.



Sources: Tie



All of Pro's sources supported arguments that I showed to be irrelevant.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheBrorator 5 years ago
TheBrorator
LD Debate is odd, but you really could have looked it up, Con.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Sorry about the double post, I've been having server issues.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Zaradi, maybe afterward you can explain to me how L/D debate works. My negative impression is probably the result of the fact that I so often end up debating people on the internet who give a very loose description of the rules and then try to bring in technicalities I've never heard of to "rebut" what I think are legitimate arguments.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Zaradi, maybe afterward you can explain to me how L/D debate works. My negative impression is probably the result of the fact that I so often end up debating people on the internet who give a very loose description of the rules and then try to bring in technicalities I've never heard of to "rebut" what I think are legitimate arguments.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
When voting on this, I will try to keep an unbiased view, but some of the comments of the nature of LD just saddens me deeply.

To write a case in a Lincoln-Douglas form, you do not necessarily need a value. Having a value/standard is only one way to weigh the round. There are others, such as burdens. Other such types of cases don't need values, such as disadvantages, kritiks, and theory/topicality. All of those are commonly run cases on the TFA State and National level circuit, yet none have values or standards. For a regular LD case, a value and standard is the general way to go. But it isn't NECESSARY to have a value/standard for LD.
Posted by ThePhilosophersDeduction 5 years ago
ThePhilosophersDeduction
Well, I would like to follow the UIL LD format. Essentially, in your first argument you will present your own case, and rebut mine, of course. All rounds following will be strictly rebuttals and no new arguments may be presented.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Is there a specific format you want me to abide by?
Posted by ThePhilosophersDeduction 5 years ago
ThePhilosophersDeduction
It's no problem. It's actually the UIL Lincoln-Douglass Spring resolution.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
I did a similar debate in my class a *long* time ago...too lazy to dig up my notes tho. =.='

I would have taken this debate...but sadly, I'm not prepared.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ThePhilosophersDeductionGrapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Intellectual evisceration at its finest. I found the whole quasi-compulsory Lincoln-Douglas format to be an off-putting lawyering technique employed by Pro. Con's strong arguments and the lack of subsequent refutation lend credence to the clear win. Well done con! Take a bracing shot of absinthe and sail on your ship of victory!
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
ThePhilosophersDeductionGrapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments went unrefuted by Pro. Pro attempted to win through a technical ploy but, no where in the first round does it state the debaters must follow LD rules, nor did Pro explain exactly what LD debate entails in the comments section and then attempted to throw out Con's argument based upon rules Con did not even know...if you want a specific format place it in the first round.