Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do arguments have to be consistent?

TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:50:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

Not in policy debate. Though they can't really contradict. Ie, running solvency and a Disadvantage together.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:23:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know if there are any policy specific nuances that changes things (I was an LDer), so if you want to ask someone with a little more experience with Policy, you can ask Bluesteel or Raisor. But I want to say no depending on how you link and impact the argument. If you make a link turn saying that under util we curtail surveillance to avoid tyranny, I don't see how that's a problem. You'd just be layering the debate.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:31:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

I don't think deontology and consequentialism are mutually exclusive. Both involve duty. The only question is what that duty is contingent upon. Consequences, by themselves, don't give us morality at all. If I don't change the oil in my car, my car will break down sooner, but the consequences of not changing the oil in my car by themselves tell me nothing about what I ought to do. Morality is necessarily deontological since it makes demands on our behavior and prescribes our obligations. Consequences inform our duties. For example, if I have a duty to rescue somebody who is in danger, and if the consequences of me looking the other way when I see a three year old walking into traffic are that the three year old could get run over, then I have a duty to rescue that three year old.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:49:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:50:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

Not in policy debate. Though they can't really contradict. Ie, running solvency and a Disadvantage together.

Im not sure I understand what you mean Lannan
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 5:49:02 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:50:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

Not in policy debate. Though they can't really contradict. Ie, running solvency and a Disadvantage together.

Im not sure I understand what you mean Lannan

As long as they don't contradict each other you're fine.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 5:31:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

I don't think deontology and consequentialism are mutually exclusive. Both involve duty. The only question is what that duty is contingent upon. Consequences, by themselves, don't give us morality at all. If I don't change the oil in my car, my car will break down sooner, but the consequences of not changing the oil in my car by themselves tell me nothing about what I ought to do. Morality is necessarily deontological since it makes demands on our behavior and prescribes our obligations. Consequences inform our duties. For example, if I have a duty to rescue somebody who is in danger, and if the consequences of me looking the other way when I see a three year old walking into traffic are that the three year old could get run over, then I have a duty to rescue that three year old.

Does it affect my argument if the two are not mutally exclusive, And also, the main question was, can I have two arguments which are out of sink. Do you have an opinion on that?
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:55:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 5:49:52 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:49:02 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:50:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

Not in policy debate. Though they can't really contradict. Ie, running solvency and a Disadvantage together.

Im not sure I understand what you mean Lannan

As long as they don't contradict each other you're fine.

But they do contradict right, because in one instance I say instead of consequentialism we should use deontology, then in the next argument I plainly accept consequentialism as base to make my argument. Is this not a contradiction.
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 5:55:28 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:49:52 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:49:02 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:50:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

Not in policy debate. Though they can't really contradict. Ie, running solvency and a Disadvantage together.

Im not sure I understand what you mean Lannan

As long as they don't contradict each other you're fine.

But they do contradict right, because in one instance I say instead of consequentialism we should use deontology, then in the next argument I plainly accept consequentialism as base to make my argument. Is this not a contradiction.

Well you could some how link them and argue teleology if push came to shove in order to avoid contradiction.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 6:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well you could some how link them and argue teleology if push came to shove in order to avoid contradiction.

So its sounds to me like you agree that is a contradiction, but is that contradiction acceptable to maintain? The arguments are individually valid and sound, but my confusion is on whether I have to keep a solid and fixed argument which has the same moral base the whole time. I think the answer is, no I do not have to do that. However, I want to know Why. That way I can explain it in round.

Take for example this debate

http://www.debate.org...

Where Philocat does this same thing. He argues disadvantages against watching porn based on consequentialism, rossian ethics and deontological ethics,
holding that morality is based solely on reason, then to argue that 7 things are inherently good just because. I pointed this out and was told that this is fine. But again I want to know exactly Why this is so and despite that if there is some magical rule in policy which says no anyways.
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 6:14:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:13:01 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
Well you could some how link them and argue teleology if push came to shove in order to avoid contradiction.

So its sounds to me like you agree that is a contradiction, but is that contradiction acceptable to maintain? The arguments are individually valid and sound, but my confusion is on whether I have to keep a solid and fixed argument which has the same moral base the whole time. I think the answer is, no I do not have to do that. However, I want to know Why. That way I can explain it in round.

Take for example this debate

http://www.debate.org...

Where Philocat does this same thing. He argues disadvantages against watching porn based on consequentialism, rossian ethics and deontological ethics,
holding that morality is based solely on reason, then to argue that 7 things are inherently good just because. I pointed this out and was told that this is fine. But again I want to know exactly Why this is so and despite that if there is some magical rule in policy which says no anyways.

Yes, if you get challenged on it you can always argue teleology and that it's all related to one thing and thus there would be no contradiction as long as the main thing is satisfied.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 6:24:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:17:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
why did you choose teology?

Teleology. I'm a christian and I believe, and I've done this before in policy, that many people won't know it's a Christian thing and for the soul fact that you've grounded your arguments to something that's undebatable you can easily use Newton's flaming laser sword to negate any argument against it meaning that you would win any debate going that way reguardless and in policy there really isn't many who are smart enough to refute that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 7:32:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 6:24:22 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:17:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
why did you choose teology?

Teleology. I'm a christian and I believe, and I've done this before in policy, that many people won't know it's a Christian thing and for the soul fact that you've grounded your arguments to something that's undebatable you can easily use Newton's flaming laser sword to negate any argument against it meaning that you would win any debate going that way reguardless and in policy there really isn't many who are smart enough to refute that.

Ooooooooor you can just layer the debate and play to multiple win conditions and avoid the whole teleology discussion in the first place...just a tad simpler...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 7:40:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think your case should be consistent, but there is no reason you can use consequentialist arguments to turn an opponent's case that is based on consequentialism.
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...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 7:54:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wouldn't consider that a contradiction, because you're just hedging your bets. I.e., you're claiming that X is immoral according to deontology and according to consequentialism. So long as you're primarily arguing in favor of the proposition that the US should not spy on its citizens, then it's totally acceptable. However, if you're primarily arguing that deontology is superior to consequentiism and use that example to illustrate your argument, then pointing out that it's immoral for the US to spy on its citizens even according to consequentialism is irrelevant.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 7:59:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:38:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
So, i'm preparing for policy debate next year and I want to make a slew of arguments but i was kind of caught in a dillema. I want to argue that consequentialism is immoral and instead we should use deontology. I would argue that spying on people is wrong based on deontology because it violates rights of another individual, thus as the affirmative, I would make a plan to abolish all surveillance in the US, despite the consequences. My question is whether or not I could make arguments which were inconsistent with that philosophical position and have a separate argument that is based in consequentialism. Or in other words. We should curtail US surveillance of people because for example, not doing so creates a tyranny in the United States which ends the country, a consequentialist argument. Is this allowable? Does argument A have to agree with argument B necessarily in All instances?

I'm curious: what resolution are you defending? That deontology is superior to consequentialism, or that the US should not spy on its citizens?
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 5:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 7:59:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm curious: what resolution are you defending? That deontology is superior to consequentialism, or that the US should not spy on its citizens?

I am defending the resolution for 2016-17 policy debate, that Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:38:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:38:35 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/14/2015 7:59:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm curious: what resolution are you defending? That deontology is superior to consequentialism, or that the US should not spy on its citizens?

I am defending the resolution for 2016-17 policy debate, that Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

In that case, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to come at the issue from two different philosophical angles. If you can demonstrate that it doesn't matter which ethical system you subscribe to, the answer remains the same, then you've made a stronger case than one which only considers the problem within a single ethical system.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 8:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 6:38:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In that case, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to come at the issue from two different philosophical angles. If you can demonstrate that it doesn't matter which ethical system you subscribe to, the answer remains the same, then you've made a stronger case than one which only considers the problem within a single ethical system.

Well, although I actually agree with your point. I believe that I am truly just making a stronger case however if I play devil's advocate, couldn't one argue that arguments made in round are basically the two teams arguing about competing views of what reality is? And as such I can't advocate multiple realities as true? Then again the Negative team could do the exact same thing, argue from multiple perspectives, but this is just an argument about principle I guess.

Again though, I could say the point of debate is education and layering the debate and adding more angles adds to education.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 8:47:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 7:32:46 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:24:22 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:17:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
why did you choose teology?

Teleology. I'm a christian and I believe, and I've done this before in policy, that many people won't know it's a Christian thing and for the soul fact that you've grounded your arguments to something that's undebatable you can easily use Newton's flaming laser sword to negate any argument against it meaning that you would win any debate going that way reguardless and in policy there really isn't many who are smart enough to refute that.

Ooooooooor you can just layer the debate and play to multiple win conditions and avoid the whole teleology discussion in the first place...just a tad simpler...

Lol that's true. Here's my thing though. If you are saying that I should be allowed to make layered arguments because they might appeal to the specific judge's beliefs, then I face the problem that not a lot of people would agree with anything other than consequentialism. I would offer a different perspective and they would go..."nah, I dont like that one, I believe in something else" and that argument is just gone.

What I wanted was to Advocate for deontological philosophical moral base and then argue using consequentialist grounds, you know, impacts...ect. but not neccesarily to then Advocate for consequentialism, just use it the way a typical argument does. That's the real conflict here for me.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 8:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 8:47:13 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/14/2015 7:32:46 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:24:22 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/14/2015 6:17:24 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
why did you choose teology?

Teleology. I'm a christian and I believe, and I've done this before in policy, that many people won't know it's a Christian thing and for the soul fact that you've grounded your arguments to something that's undebatable you can easily use Newton's flaming laser sword to negate any argument against it meaning that you would win any debate going that way reguardless and in policy there really isn't many who are smart enough to refute that.

Ooooooooor you can just layer the debate and play to multiple win conditions and avoid the whole teleology discussion in the first place...just a tad simpler...

Lol that's true. Here's my thing though. If you are saying that I should be allowed to make layered arguments because they might appeal to the specific judge's beliefs,

Except that's not what I'm saying. Do you understand what layering is as a concept?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 8:57:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 8:50:21 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Except that's not what I'm saying. Do you understand what layering is as a concept?

my guess would just be making a multitude of arguments to suite specific audiences or people in audiences. But I would more more than happy to get a better understanding if you want to explain.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:04:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 8:57:00 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/15/2015 8:50:21 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Except that's not what I'm saying. Do you understand what layering is as a concept?

my guess would just be making a multitude of arguments to suite specific audiences or people in audiences. But I would more more than happy to get a better understanding if you want to explain.

Yeah. Layering is essentially just about giving yourself multiple avenues to win a debate. Basically you're saying to the judge "Okay, vote for me because I'm winning on X. But if you don't buy X, you can still vote off of Y. And even if you don't buy Y, I'm still winning on Z and that's sufficient for you to vote."

You effectively are, on the flow, layering ways to win one on top of the other. You just have:

X
If not X, then Y
If not X and Y, then Z.

So to put it in context of your situation, you can argue for deontology, and make utilitarian turns against your opponent's case. That way you can say "Judge, you can vote off of my case since I'm doing better. But even if you don't buy my case, I'm still winning off of the util turns to his case, so you can still vote for me there."

Make sense?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:11:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 9:04:13 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/15/2015 8:57:00 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/15/2015 8:50:21 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Except that's not what I'm saying. Do you understand what layering is as a concept?

my guess would just be making a multitude of arguments to suite specific audiences or people in audiences. But I would more more than happy to get a better understanding if you want to explain.

Yeah. Layering is essentially just about giving yourself multiple avenues to win a debate. Basically you're saying to the judge "Okay, vote for me because I'm winning on X. But if you don't buy X, you can still vote off of Y. And even if you don't buy Y, I'm still winning on Z and that's sufficient for you to vote."

You effectively are, on the flow, layering ways to win one on top of the other. You just have:

X
If not X, then Y
If not X and Y, then Z.

So to put it in context of your situation, you can argue for deontology, and make utilitarian turns against your opponent's case. That way you can say "Judge, you can vote off of my case since I'm doing better. But even if you don't buy my case, I'm still winning off of the util turns to his case, so you can still vote for me there."

Make sense?

Yea, I get the concept. One thing that I need to clarify though is, do you advocate for the truthness of X, Y and Z...or...do you simply lay them out as options; there for the judge's possible preferences on, morality in this case?

I would guess the latter, but either way it doesn't matter because in my argument I can advocate for deontology and then simply use util as a method of 'turning' their arguments using their own philosophical standard.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:21:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 9:11:03 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/15/2015 9:04:13 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/15/2015 8:57:00 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/15/2015 8:50:21 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Except that's not what I'm saying. Do you understand what layering is as a concept?

my guess would just be making a multitude of arguments to suite specific audiences or people in audiences. But I would more more than happy to get a better understanding if you want to explain.

Yeah. Layering is essentially just about giving yourself multiple avenues to win a debate. Basically you're saying to the judge "Okay, vote for me because I'm winning on X. But if you don't buy X, you can still vote off of Y. And even if you don't buy Y, I'm still winning on Z and that's sufficient for you to vote."

You effectively are, on the flow, layering ways to win one on top of the other. You just have:

X
If not X, then Y
If not X and Y, then Z.

So to put it in context of your situation, you can argue for deontology, and make utilitarian turns against your opponent's case. That way you can say "Judge, you can vote off of my case since I'm doing better. But even if you don't buy my case, I'm still winning off of the util turns to his case, so you can still vote for me there."

Make sense?

Yea, I get the concept. One thing that I need to clarify though is, do you advocate for the truthness of X, Y and Z...or...do you simply lay them out as options; there for the judge's possible preferences on, morality in this case?

I would guess the latter, but either way it doesn't matter because in my argument I can advocate for deontology and then simply use util as a method of 'turning' their arguments using their own philosophical standard.

You're advocating that x y and z are all correct. Why would you make an argument that wasn't true?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:31:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 9:21:32 PM, Zaradi wrote:
You're advocating that x y and z are all correct. Why would you make an argument that wasn't true?

Right, so I'm arguing that these N number of arguments are true. But how can I argue that they are all true because consequentialism and deontology are competing ideologies. Its like arguing that something is white just to say that it is black in the next sentence. Two statements about reality which cannot both be true, just as in my example.

btw this is no longer about what I will do in my argument, I understand that I can simply util as a method as a turn, but in debate can I present two competing ideas as both true? I feel like the answer is no.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:44:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 9:31:15 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/15/2015 9:21:32 PM, Zaradi wrote:
You're advocating that x y and z are all correct. Why would you make an argument that wasn't true?

Right, so I'm arguing that these N number of arguments are true. But how can I argue that they are all true because consequentialism and deontology are competing ideologies. Its like arguing that something is white just to say that it is black in the next sentence. Two statements about reality which cannot both be true, just as in my example.

btw this is no longer about what I will do in my argument, I understand that I can simply util as a method as a turn, but in debate can I present two competing ideas as both true? I feel like the answer is no.

I can say that X is false and that even if X is true we still shouldn't do X. They're contradictory claims because one is saying that X is wrong and one concedes X is right. But you're advocating that X is wrong. If you aren't winning that X is wrong, though, then you can still argue the flipside and try to win. That's what layering is. Having multiple ways to win.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:50:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 9:44:40 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I can say that X is false and that even if X is true we still shouldn't do X. They're contradictory claims because one is saying that X is wrong and one concedes X is right. But you're advocating that X is wrong. If you aren't winning that X is wrong, though, then you can still argue the flipside and try to win. That's what layering is. Having multiple ways to win.

Nice, I'll try to incorporate this strategy into all of my debate from now on. It will make for a good way to bump up my chances of winning my judge. Thanks Z
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:57:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 8:40:28 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:38:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In that case, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to come at the issue from two different philosophical angles. If you can demonstrate that it doesn't matter which ethical system you subscribe to, the answer remains the same, then you've made a stronger case than one which only considers the problem within a single ethical system.

Well, although I actually agree with your point. I believe that I am truly just making a stronger case however if I play devil's advocate, couldn't one argue that arguments made in round are basically the two teams arguing about competing views of what reality is? And as such I can't advocate multiple realities as true? Then again the Negative team could do the exact same thing, argue from multiple perspectives, but this is just an argument about principle I guess.

Again though, I could say the point of debate is education and layering the debate and adding more angles adds to education.

You don't need to adopt a view of reality in order to theorize about its implications. The point of considering the issue from multiple perspectives is that you don't need to show that one perspective is superior to the others in order to establish your argument. If you can show that it doesn't matter which view of reality someone accepts, that your resolution is in any case correct, then your argument is harder to refute.