Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Possible Debate Topics

YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 7:33:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Parents should be liable for the torts of their adolescent children. (PRO)
2. On balance, governmentally ensured access to health care is beneficial to society. (PRO)
3. American courts should adopt a duty to rescue. (CON)
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:33:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

I'm referring to this.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:51:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

ooh that's an interesting one, I might actually like to do that one as a serious debate (for the first time on here like ever XD)

I could do either side.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:56:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

One is legally required if you are summoned to perform it, the other is not.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:56:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

One is legally required if you are summoned to perform it, the other is not.

But should it be? Isn't that kinda the whole debate?
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:58:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:56:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

One is legally required if you are summoned to perform it, the other is not.

But should it be? Isn't that kinda the whole debate?

They are different 'kinds' of duties. Jury duty is not a duty to rescue. A duty to rescue is not jury duty. The only thing in common is that they are concepts in which people are required to do things. They are different in (1) the kind of action they involve, (2) the meaning of that action, (3) the impact of that action, (4) the service for whom the action is performed, (5) the function of the obligation, (6) the legal issues governing the duty, etc.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:01:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:58:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:56:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

One is legally required if you are summoned to perform it, the other is not.

But should it be? Isn't that kinda the whole debate?

The only thing in common is that they are concepts in which people are required to do things.

I disagree. I think those "things" are essentially the same.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:06:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:05:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:01:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:58:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:56:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

One is legally required if you are summoned to perform it, the other is not.

But should it be? Isn't that kinda the whole debate?

The only thing in common is that they are concepts in which people are required to do things.

I disagree. I think those "things" are essentially the same.

And why is that, Dylan?
Tsar of DDO
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:07:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

Well Jury Duty isn't generally considered life threatening, but depending on the definition/limits of "duty to rescue," the duty to rescue could be life threatening to the rescuer (i.e. protecting someone who is getting mugged/attacked). Also, Jury Duty doesn't take money from you, but a duty to rescue could include a duty to donate to help/rescue others.

Duty to rescue has to be more specifically defined to be able to actually compare it to jury duty, but those are just two examples of the vague definition that are fundamentally different from jury duty.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:08:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:07:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

Well Jury Duty isn't generally considered life threatening, but depending on the definition/limits of "duty to rescue," the duty to rescue could be life threatening to the rescuer (i.e. protecting someone who is getting mugged/attacked). Also, Jury Duty doesn't take money from you, but a duty to rescue could include a duty to donate to help/rescue others.


I'm not talking about that though. I'm referring only to times when it would be perfectly safe for someone to assist someone.

Duty to rescue has to be more specifically defined to be able to actually compare it to jury duty, but those are just two examples of the vague definition that are fundamentally different from jury duty.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:17:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:06:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:05:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:01:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:58:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:56:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

One is legally required if you are summoned to perform it, the other is not.

But should it be? Isn't that kinda the whole debate?

The only thing in common is that they are concepts in which people are required to do things.

I disagree. I think those "things" are essentially the same.

And why is that, Dylan?

Because serving on a jury and assisting someone in danger have the following in common: (1) someone else's life/future heavily depends on it, (2) the person has no other option available to them i.e., the "helper" would be performing an action that couldn't have been achieved otherwise (3) it's quite possible that the "victim" ended up in the situation through no fault of their own (4) the cost to the "helper" is astronomically less than the cost to the potential victim (5) virtually everyone would expect and want someone else to do the same, and therefore requiring everyone to do it forces everyone to act "objectively".
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:32:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:08:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:07:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

Well Jury Duty isn't generally considered life threatening, but depending on the definition/limits of "duty to rescue," the duty to rescue could be life threatening to the rescuer (i.e. protecting someone who is getting mugged/attacked). Also, Jury Duty doesn't take money from you, but a duty to rescue could include a duty to donate to help/rescue others.



I'm not talking about that though. I'm referring only to times when it would be perfectly safe for someone to assist someone.

That's why "Duty to rescue" needs to be specified. Left as a general idea, the examples I provided could logically be left under the definition. The most reasonable way to argue it would be to clarify or create a specific law and then argue if that law is just.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:32:52 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:08:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:07:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

Well Jury Duty isn't generally considered life threatening, but depending on the definition/limits of "duty to rescue," the duty to rescue could be life threatening to the rescuer (i.e. protecting someone who is getting mugged/attacked). Also, Jury Duty doesn't take money from you, but a duty to rescue could include a duty to donate to help/rescue others.



I'm not talking about that though. I'm referring only to times when it would be perfectly safe for someone to assist someone.

That's why "Duty to rescue" needs to be specified. Left as a general idea, the examples I provided could logically be left under the definition. The most reasonable way to argue it would be to clarify or create a specific law and then argue if that law is just.

Like I said, I was referring to this:

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:35:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:33:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:32:52 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:08:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:07:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

Well Jury Duty isn't generally considered life threatening, but depending on the definition/limits of "duty to rescue," the duty to rescue could be life threatening to the rescuer (i.e. protecting someone who is getting mugged/attacked). Also, Jury Duty doesn't take money from you, but a duty to rescue could include a duty to donate to help/rescue others.



I'm not talking about that though. I'm referring only to times when it would be perfectly safe for someone to assist someone.

That's why "Duty to rescue" needs to be specified. Left as a general idea, the examples I provided could logically be left under the definition. The most reasonable way to argue it would be to clarify or create a specific law and then argue if that law is just.

Like I said, I was referring to this:

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Oh, I was skimming :P
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:35:36 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:33:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:32:52 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:08:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:07:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:50:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:47:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:32:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

There are many countries that impose a duty to rescue on bystanders such that those who stand idly while another is in danger will be liable to the person they ignored for their failure to act. I think Japan might have such a law, and I'm fairly sure that south Asian nations do as well. I'm ignorant of whether China does.

The United States, in contrast, (outside of Vermont, I think) does not impose a duty to rescue. There is the general standard that one who takes some affirmative act to aid another is responsible for taking reasonable care to complete their act, such that if they do not, they will be liable for damages resulting from their failure, but that is not a 'duty to rescue' by any means.

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Do you believe that jury duty is justified, and if so, how is this fundamentally different from "the duty to rescue".

Jury duty is the duty that we have, as citizens, to assist in the process of justice through the courts.

A duty to rescue involves the requirement that individuals do things to prevent others from incurring (usually physical) harms. It's a duty to intervene, where that intervention would take place outside the courts.

Yes, but how are these fundamentally different? In both cases, a citizen is required to give up some of their time to help another (and in neither case is another option really available).

Well Jury Duty isn't generally considered life threatening, but depending on the definition/limits of "duty to rescue," the duty to rescue could be life threatening to the rescuer (i.e. protecting someone who is getting mugged/attacked). Also, Jury Duty doesn't take money from you, but a duty to rescue could include a duty to donate to help/rescue others.



I'm not talking about that though. I'm referring only to times when it would be perfectly safe for someone to assist someone.

That's why "Duty to rescue" needs to be specified. Left as a general idea, the examples I provided could logically be left under the definition. The most reasonable way to argue it would be to clarify or create a specific law and then argue if that law is just.

Like I said, I was referring to this:

But, again, what I'm mainly interested in is the issue of whether courts ought to impose liability on bystanders who fail to intervene on another's behalf when the party that may potentially intervene fails to act but could have in the absence of great personal sacrifice or the exposure to substantial risk. Another substantive issue, then, could be to what extent individuals ought to be reasonably expected to expose themselves to danger/harm/risk to come to another's aid.

Oh, I was skimming :P

=P
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:59:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:37:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
=P

http://media.giphy.com...
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 2:03:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

I think that there are certainly valid ethical arguments for and against the issue of whether there is a duty to rescue, but I think we're probably in agreement regarding that point. I can 'make' an argument as to why there is no ethical city to rescue, but it's not one I would be personally invested in.

The legal issue is really the substance of my focus, because while in the courts of heaven the standard of expected altruism is most likely necessarily higher, it is the courts of man that I'm primarily interested in evaluating.

Okay. Yeah, I'm just not interested in a legal debate on the subject, but I wish you luck if you do debate the topic!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 2:08:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:51:12 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

ooh that's an interesting one, I might actually like to do that one as a serious debate (for the first time on here like ever XD)

Sweet! If no one accepts my 100th debate challenge, would you be willing to do that topic with me?

I could do either side.

I'd prefer Pro.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 2:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 2:08:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:51:12 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

ooh that's an interesting one, I might actually like to do that one as a serious debate (for the first time on here like ever XD)

Sweet! If no one accepts my 100th debate challenge, would you be willing to do that topic with me?

Yes :) I promise to actually debate the topic and not troll XD

I could do either side.

I'd prefer Pro.

Alright I can do con.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 3:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 7:33:11 AM, YYW wrote:
1. Parents should be liable for the torts of their adolescent children. (PRO)
2. On balance, governmentally ensured access to health care is beneficial to society. (PRO)
3. American courts should adopt a duty to rescue. (CON)

(4) That euthanizing the dog of the Spanish nurse who got Ebola was wrong. (Split.)
(5) That the Pope was right in his comments about gays. (Pro.)
(6) That California should take high measures to minimize earthquake damage. (Split.)
(7) That Oscar Pistorious should not be charged with murder. (Con.)
(8) That clowns ought to be banned. (Troll.)
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 3:53:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

inb4 Egoism
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 4:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 3:35:05 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:33:11 AM, YYW wrote:
1. Parents should be liable for the torts of their adolescent children. (PRO)
2. On balance, governmentally ensured access to health care is beneficial to society. (PRO)
3. American courts should adopt a duty to rescue. (CON)

(4) That euthanizing the dog of the Spanish nurse who got Ebola was wrong. (Split.)

I have no opinion.

(5) That the Pope was right in his comments about gays. (Pro.)

He was on the way to being right.

(6) That California should take high measures to minimize earthquake damage. (Split.)

This is debatable?

(7) That Oscar Pistorious should not be charged with murder. (Con.)

This is debatable?

(8) That clowns ought to be banned. (Troll.)

lol
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 4:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 2:14:16 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 2:08:00 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:51:12 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 10:50:09 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I would be interested in 3, though I would want to debate it in more of an ethical/moral context than a legal one, if you'd be okay with that. Something like "There ought to be a duty to rescue." My interest is also contingent on what I find in my preliminary research, but let me know if you'd be okay with that re-framing of the issue.

ooh that's an interesting one, I might actually like to do that one as a serious debate (for the first time on here like ever XD)

Sweet! If no one accepts my 100th debate challenge, would you be willing to do that topic with me?

Yes :) I promise to actually debate the topic and not troll XD

I could do either side.

I'd prefer Pro.

Alright I can do con.

Thanks!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Above the spam you go.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9