The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Discipulus_Didicit
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

the golden rule in application is not clear

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...
Discipulus_Didicit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 78278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the rule itself may be clear, but the application of the rule isn't always.

maybe instead of disorganized mess of ideas as i gave in the past, i will give a hypothetical.


for example. intervention v deferrence. John is doing cocaine, and only dabbles in it and views it as nondebateably harmless in the bigger picture. Bob thinks any cocaine use is going too far, and is not debatable to say otherwise. Bob personally would want someone to invervene if he was doing cocaine. on the other hand, Bob also would want people to respect his wishes on things he sees as debateably okay or nondebateable.

does Bob intervene, based on the fact that he'd want intervened with on cocaine use, especially given he personally sees it as undebateably not okay? or does he respect John's wishes given John must at least view cocaine use as at least debateably to nondebateably okay?

reliance on the golden rule doesn't really direct how to approach it. if you take one option, it undermines the other considerations. the rule admittedly gives you food for thought and directs you in a laudable way in general, but how to respond isn't so clear cut.
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

Thank you for choosing me for this debate. As pro has stated opening arguments, I assume first round is not for acceptance only.

First, Let me point out that my position as con DOES NOT mean I believe the golden rule is a sound basis for moral decisions. My position as con merely means I believe it is clear in application. That is to say, in any given situation it is clear what one should do if one wishes to stick to the golden rule.

Now that the purpose of this debate is made clear, allow me to state for the record what the golden rule actually says:

Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.

I will now address my oponents example.

John believes the following:

1) Cocaine use is okay morally

Bob believes the following:

1) Cocaine use is not okay morally
2) if he was doing cocaine, he would want someone to intervene.
3) If he were doing something he thought was okay morallyhe would not want anyone to intervene.

However, there is some information missing that, if filled in, would make the issue much more clear. To illustrate, let us bring in a third character named Paul.

Paul believes the following:

1) Smoking cigarettes is not okay for health reasons.

Now, let us say Bob has the following attributes:

4) Believes cocaine is not okay for health reasons.
5) Believes smoking cigarettes is okay morally.
6) Believes smoking cigarettes is not okay for health reasons.
7) Smokes cigarettes (is addicted).
8) Believes Paul (should/should) not intervene in his smoking habit for health reasons.

Depending on what Bob would want Paul to do on to him in number eight will determine what Bob should do on to John regarding cocaine.

You see, the percieved issue was based on a lack of information. Note that I did not change any of pros original premises, nor are any new premises inconsistent with pros original ones.

Pro must do one of the following to show that my argument is invalid:

1) Demonstrate one or more of my new premises is inconsistent with pros original ones.

2) Demonstrate that knowing the answer to number eight would not necessarily give a good answer as to whether Bob should intervene with John.

3) Demonstrate that the answer to number eight does logically follow from the other premises.

Back to you pro.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con was very verbose but seems to basically say what if the person bob who doesn't like cocaine smoked cigarettes? would he want intervened against? that, according to con, should answer the cocaine question.

it doesnt.

first, cigarettes and cocaine are different. even if both are bad for health reasons, cocaine is considered worse. so even if he didn't want intervened with cigs, he might be open to a different outcome with cocaine.

second, con says bob is against smoking. that means regardless of whether he wants intervened against, he thinks smoking is wrong, AND thinks it is a not debateable point. in general, bob doesn't mind if he's intervened with with things that are non debateble harmful.

i do admit i am having a hard time organizing my thoughts on this debate, i dont know what it is about it.
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

In her first argument my opponent misses the point entirely.

The point I was making is that Bob must ask himself what he would think about Pauls interference with his smoking habit if the reason for said hypothetical interference was given to be a health motivated reason as opposed to a morally motivated one. The reason for making this point is that pro HAS NOT mentioned what Bob feels about health-motivated interference.

The perception of cigarettes being better healthwise than cocaine, or at least less bad, is totally irrelevant UNLESS my opponent states that Bob would be okay with interference for major health issues but not okay with interference with minor health issues.

I ask my opponent to please state Bobs opinion on health motivated interference, just as my opponent has already stated Bobs opinion on morally motivated interference in her opening arguments (point 3 of my argument) Is Bob for it? Against it? Thinks it should be done only in severe situations?

My opponents second argument is much easier to dismiss. In it my opponent states the following (copy pasted from round two):

"con says bob is against smoking. that means regardless of whether he wants intervened against, he thinks smoking is wrong, AND thinks it is a not debateable point."

Simply put, this is a lie. I NEVER said Bob consideres smoking cigarettes to be morally wrong. In fact I said the EXACT OPPOSITE in point 5, something that is completely obvious to anyone who reads my argument. Dishonesty will get you nowhere, pro. Voters notice dishonesty and they don't like it.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

I would give up in the face of such superior reasoning as well, but not with red words. I would have forfeited with black words.

I don't like red words =(
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
I ask the voters to disregard any arguments made by my opponent in the comments section, and to consider it a conduct violation if my opponent continues to do so.

@dairygirl4u2c

If you think my logic is flawed please argue against it in round two of the debate. Each of us has an equal number of debate rounds. It is unfair to use the comments section to argue rather than using your allocated debate rounds.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 1 year ago
dairygirl4u2c
im having a hard time organizing my thoughts here is what i have so far

con was very verbose but seems to basically say what if the person bob who doesn't like cocaine smoked cigarettes? would he want intervened against? that, according to con, should answer the cocaine question.

it doesnt.

first, cigarettes and cocaine are different. even if both are bad for health reasons, cocaine is considered worse. so even if he didn't want intervened with cigs, he might be open to a different outcome with cocaine.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
dairygirl4u2cDiscipulus_DidicitTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF