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

Compulsory Immunizations

rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The October-November topic for LD is "Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunizations"

Comments?

For my aff and neg case I am valuing justice because it is in the resolution but I do not know how to phrase why it is the best value for the round.

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:22:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

My sentiments exactly.
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:28:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The insurance system makes all of the "whole vs individual" flavor debates an easy win.

Seat belts, vaccines, etc.

One person gets sick, we all share the cost, and the sickness.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:59:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

No you don't get points for that. It is actually good to be unoriginal in your value because if the aff and neg have conflicting values then it becomes a debate over values and nobody wants to hear that. It is better to debate what side upholds the value more. (Personally, I disagree with that. However, it is what the vice-president of our squad told me and he has way more experience then me.)
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:59:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:52:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Fail.

How so?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 6:53:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 5:59:32 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

No you don't get points for that. It is actually good to be unoriginal in your value because if the aff and neg have conflicting values then it becomes a debate over values and nobody wants to hear that. It is better to debate what side upholds the value more. (Personally, I disagree with that. However, it is what the vice-president of our squad told me and he has way more experience then me.)

No offense, but your "vice-president" (I put that in quotes because my school doesn't do President, VP, etc. We all do our own thing, because we don't care about that stuff) sounds kind of dumb. LD is also known as value debate for a reason. If there are conflicting values, it's fun to try and prove that one side achieves both values, or to prove that one value is preferable to the other in the case of conflict; but, it's also okay to have the same value, and to try to prove that only one side achieves it. You're right to disagree with him.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 8:38:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
The October-November topic for LD is "Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunizations"

Comments?

For my aff and neg case I am valuing justice because it is in the resolution but I do not know how to phrase why it is the best value for the round.

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism cannot be a criterion. It is not a method of evaluating something, it is a philosophy.

Justice, while it could work, is definitely not required for this topic. The resolution says "justify" not "is just". Something can justify it, without being based around justice.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 10:36:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm usually (that is to say, always) bored to tears by these LD topics but this one sounds very interesting. I'm anxious for DDO to become flooded with this resolution.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2009 11:03:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 8:38:28 PM, LB628 wrote:

Utilitarianism cannot be a criterion. It is not a method of evaluating something, it is a philosophy.

Justice, while it could work, is definitely not required for this topic. The resolution says "justify" not "is just". Something can justify it, without being based around justice.

utilitarianism, can be a criterion in a sense... Its a philosophy with a criterion built in. Utilitarianism can be run in a criterion form by using "maximizing net utility" this being said a Util based criterion is going to get pretty stock so try to look for other ways to affirm.
In my opinion negatives, if available in your circuit could be very successful running multiple off cases. There is lots of CP ground, Lots of deontological stuff, some interesting disads and a few Kritikal arguments.

For both sides try to look at not what the resolution says, but what the resolution means. Contextualize it, look at the spirit of the resolution. Why was this resolution one of the 10 possible topics?
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
simpleton
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 9:59:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Which utilitarianism? JS Mill's, which is consistent with early America's sense of freedom or his father's version that was consistent with tyranny and our current socialist state?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 10:16:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 9:59:53 PM, simpleton wrote:
Which utilitarianism? JS Mill's, which is consistent with early America's sense of freedom or his father's version that was consistent with tyranny and our current socialist state?

If you believe the United States is socialist, then you have some issues that need to be addressed. Like the lack of connection to reality.
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:39:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 9:59:53 PM, simpleton wrote:
Which utilitarianism? JS Mill's, which is consistent with early America's sense of freedom or his father's version that was consistent with tyranny and our current socialist state?

His Father? James Mill was not big on utilitarianism. He talked about it but it was Bentham like Util which has nothing to do with tyranny.
And Yeah Socialism and tyranny are not generally applied to the current U.S which is generally economically a little bit right.
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:26:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 6:53:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/7/2009 5:59:32 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

No you don't get points for that. It is actually good to be unoriginal in your value because if the aff and neg have conflicting values then it becomes a debate over values and nobody wants to hear that. It is better to debate what side upholds the value more. (Personally, I disagree with that. However, it is what the vice-president of our squad told me and he has way more experience then me.)

No offense, but your "vice-president" (I put that in quotes because my school doesn't do President, VP, etc. We all do our own thing, because we don't care about that stuff) sounds kind of dumb. LD is also known as value debate for a reason. If there are conflicting values, it's fun to try and prove that one side achieves both values, or to prove that one value is preferable to the other in the case of conflict; but, it's also okay to have the same value, and to try to prove that only one side achieves it. You're right to disagree with him.

For my neg case I'm not using justice. I'm most likely going to use autonomy as a value and deliberation as a criterion.
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:30:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 8:38:28 PM, LB628 wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
The October-November topic for LD is "Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunizations"

Comments?

For my aff and neg case I am valuing justice because it is in the resolution but I do not know how to phrase why it is the best value for the round.

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism cannot be a criterion. It is not a method of evaluating something, it is a philosophy.

Justice, while it could work, is definitely not required for this topic. The resolution says "justify" not "is just". Something can justify it, without being based around justice.

Utilitarianism can be used as a criterion because utilitarianism basically says that the morally right choice is the one that helps the most people.
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:37:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/10/2009 11:03:51 PM, Metz wrote:

For both sides try to look at not what the resolution says, but what the resolution means. Contextualize it, look at the spirit of the resolution. Why was this resolution one of the 10 possible topics?

Can you elaborate more on this? I'm don't fully understand...
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:41:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/7/2009 6:53:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/7/2009 5:59:57 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:52:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Fail.

How so?

I hate utilitarianism. A lot. Just the way it comes off sounds really incompetent.

It it not incompetent. It may be a bit goody-two-shoes but it is actually very practical. It is based on the idea of providing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. In a world of scarce resourced, we can't spend unlimited resources solving all problems. We have to make choices.
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:45:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What if there was no risk involved in immunizing the population? The resolution talks about immunizing, not necessarily vaccinating. To immunize is to make immune...
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 7:08:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 4:46:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
i think the point is to remember even if the damn things work it doesnt matter the point is it just

the reason i would say that is because the neg is gonna most likely have a TON of evidence saying they don't work and therefore should not be forced on the population
rawrxqueen
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 5:59:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 5:02:35 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
or the neg can just use the quality of life and side of effects equal a bad quality of life

Yes but they would have to prove that the risks outweigh the benefits and provide a ton of evidence. It's better to say that you should decide what to put into your body, not the government.
pwnzoar
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 10:55:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here are my thoughts on what I've seen here thus far:

1: I never like using justice as a value. EVER. It is very vague, and on many an occasion I have slaughtered opponents using it. Your broad and indefinite value offers no meaningful connection to this resolution. It is the broadest moral end a person can possibly pursue. It is the pursuit of virtually every philosopher no matter how different their means may be, and a good debater will attack it based on how incredibly immaterial it is. A person cannot possibly hope to weigh justice, and so there is no way to have an objective criteria for it.

2: Utilitarianism is too safe. WAY too safe. Any novice is familiar with it and can defend or attack it. It is in direct conflict with individual rights, and you will open yourself up to attacks on that front. You are setting yourself up for a classic majority verses minority situation that a decent neg will win by playing to a judges sense of autonomy. Don't be so unoriginal. You say originality isn't valuable, but it has brought me many a trophy and captain's position on my team.

I have some original case ideas that I am going to keep off the nets at large, but if anyone would like to do some brainstorming outside of public areas feel free to message me.
Nails
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:35:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 7:08:10 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
At 10/16/2009 4:46:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
i think the point is to remember even if the damn things work it doesnt matter the point is it just

the reason i would say that is because the neg is gonna most likely have a TON of evidence saying they don't work and therefore should not be forced on the population

I think that that would be a terrible NEG strat. There's plenty more evidence for the AFF saying that they do more good than harm. A much better avenue for the negative to take, in my opinion, would be the debate over societal welfare vs. individual rights.

I expect a lot of AFFs, at least in novice rounds will just be:
My value is societal welfare/ public health
My criterion is util/preventing disease/etc.
6 minutes talking why immunizations help public health

Chances are they won't have developed the need for societal welfare over the individual, so the moment you win that argument, they lose all their ground. They spent 6 minutes proving the benefits to societal welfare, and it all goes away if you win the argument that it doesn't matter.
Its-you-or-me
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:10:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
AFF: V:Societal Well-being
C:Utilitarianism

Neg: V:Health
C:Individual Autonomy
I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"-Bill Hicks