Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

October PF Topic Discussion/Analysis

WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 9:44:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The topic is, 'Resolved: Developed Countries Have A Moral Obligation To Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.'

List of developed countries: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Now, firstly, I'd like to say that this topic kind of runs a bit like an LD topic. One will probably have to verify the morality of something with philosophy, etc. Also, I'm thinking framework will be a lot more prevalent in this topic than preferred in most PF topics.

Now, in looking into this and analyzing the resolution, I found that climate, which is, 'the meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region,' (thefreedictionary), cannot really apply necessarily to much else than global warming.

Climate change refers to a region that characteristically does not or does have hurricanes/tornadoes/etc all of the sudden becoming a region that is the opposite. Then, this would say that developed countries are morally obligated to lessen the effects of this climate change.

Sticking with that definition of climate, we would need to look into the causes of climate change. The natural are continental drift, the earth's tilt, volcanoes, ocean currents, and others I'm sure.

Lowest (air) polluting and highest (air) polluting countries: (http://www.americanscientist.org...)

Those caused by us, humans, are related mostly to pollution. As many of us have probably already inferenced, quite a few of the countries producing the highest amount of air pollution are developed and the lowest ones are all developing countries.

Because of this, one could say that developed countries have a responsibility to clean up their mess. When other countries are negatively affected due to climate change, and climate change is attributed to their massive emissions of greenhouse gases, then these developed countries are responsible for lessening the damage.

Other undeveloped countries, we could say, are not capable of fulfilling this obligation, as to be obligated is, 'to bind, compel, or constrain by a social, legal, or moral tie,' (thefreedictionary). Now, if you are bound to do something, there is no way to get out of it. You have to do it. If a country is undeveloped/developing, it is not capable of lessening the effects of climate change. Because being obligated means you have to do it, and developing countries just can't, they aren't obligated.

So, since you've proved that developed countries are responsible for a large part of climate change, that developing countries cannot be obligated, and that the moral action is to take responsibility for one's actions, you have a pretty decent case. Or, one should hope.

This analysis was more for myself than anything.

I want comments on it and help. I need to strengthen my understanding of this topic.

I still have yet to do the negative side.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 1:26:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem here is that the res calls for MORAL obligation.

Meaning you have to establish a moral framework.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 1:49:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 1:26:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The problem here is that the res calls for MORAL obligation.

Meaning you have to establish a moral framework.

Imo, every topic is about morality.

Even the word "should" is defined as obligation, duty, or correctness, which relates to morals.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 1:26:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The problem here is that the res calls for MORAL obligation.

Meaning you have to establish a moral framework.

And that a country is to act moral. People act moral, a country does what is in it's best interest. No country "acts moral", never has either.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:56:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:46:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/24/2012 1:26:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The problem here is that the res calls for MORAL obligation.

Meaning you have to establish a moral framework.

And that a country is to act moral. People act moral, a country does what is in it's best interest. No country "acts moral", never has either.

Well, wouldn't it make sense to say that a country consists of people, and thus a country essentially IS people? And people do have morals?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:22:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:56:59 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:46:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/24/2012 1:26:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The problem here is that the res calls for MORAL obligation.

Meaning you have to establish a moral framework.

And that a country is to act moral. People act moral, a country does what is in it's best interest. No country "acts moral", never has either.

Well, wouldn't it make sense to say that a country consists of people, and thus a country essentially IS people? And people do have morals?

You could, but then we're getting into some policy T-type sh1t. I hate T with a passion.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:42:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:56:59 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:46:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/24/2012 1:26:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The problem here is that the res calls for MORAL obligation.

Meaning you have to establish a moral framework.

And that a country is to act moral. People act moral, a country does what is in it's best interest. No country "acts moral", never has either.

Well, wouldn't it make sense to say that a country consists of people, and thus a country essentially IS people? And people do have morals?

No. What you mean by country is government, and government is an instrument of the people. Although a country may "act morally", it should be acting in the best interest of the people that it serves.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I essentially just want to say that the countries that cause the most climate change are developed, and they are morally obligated to take responsibility for their actions. Then I want to say that those that are developing and do cause a lot of pollution aren't obligated because to be bound to do something, you have to be able to do it. And developing countries aren't able to, so they aren't obligated.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:56:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:53:33 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
I essentially just want to say that the countries that cause the most climate change are developed, and they are morally obligated to take responsibility for their actions. Then I want to say that those that are developing and do cause a lot of pollution aren't obligated because to be bound to do something, you have to be able to do it. And developing countries aren't able to, so they aren't obligated.

Under what moral framework are you operating?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:56:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:33 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
I essentially just want to say that the countries that cause the most climate change are developed, and they are morally obligated to take responsibility for their actions. Then I want to say that those that are developing and do cause a lot of pollution aren't obligated because to be bound to do something, you have to be able to do it. And developing countries aren't able to, so they aren't obligated.

Under what moral framework are you operating?

That's the thing. Not sure. I'm thinking that I would be operating kind of under the Golden Rule, so probably under the categorical imperative. So, I would say that we would want people to take responsibility for their actions. At the same time, I would use that definition of obligation to prove that developing countries, however, are not obligated.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:01:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:59:45 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:56:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:33 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
I essentially just want to say that the countries that cause the most climate change are developed, and they are morally obligated to take responsibility for their actions. Then I want to say that those that are developing and do cause a lot of pollution aren't obligated because to be bound to do something, you have to be able to do it. And developing countries aren't able to, so they aren't obligated.

Under what moral framework are you operating?

That's the thing. Not sure. I'm thinking that I would be operating kind of under the Golden Rule, so probably under the categorical imperative. So, I would say that we would want people to take responsibility for their actions. At the same time, I would use that definition of obligation to prove that developing countries, however, are not obligated.

You could try a Utilitarian angle instead.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:05:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wouldn't this just degrade into a climate change debate?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:05:07 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Wouldn't this just degrade into a climate change debate?

No. This topic could go many ways, including: why are all developed countries obligated, what IS climate change, what IS a moral obligation, etc.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:21:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?

The only glaring problem I see is trying to justify WHY developed countries are responsible for their actions. That's why I personally wouldn't go for it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:22:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:21:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?

The only glaring problem I see is trying to justify WHY developed countries are responsible for their actions. That's why I personally wouldn't go for it.

Ah. How would you set up the case then? I'm really having trouble with this.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:22:27 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:21:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?

The only glaring problem I see is trying to justify WHY developed countries are responsible for their actions. That's why I personally wouldn't go for it.

Ah. How would you set up the case then? I'm really having trouble with this.

Well, I really couldn't say. I'm new to PF. I used to do policy, so...

I'll post back here if/when I think of something. You could always ask thett3. He's been doing PF for like, 3 years now.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:25:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:22:27 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:21:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?

The only glaring problem I see is trying to justify WHY developed countries are responsible for their actions. That's why I personally wouldn't go for it.

Ah. How would you set up the case then? I'm really having trouble with this.

Well, I really couldn't say. I'm new to PF. I used to do policy, so...

I'll post back here if/when I think of something. You could always ask thett3. He's been doing PF for like, 3 years now.

I'll have to locate him. It's a pretty messed up PF topic. I'm typically an LDer, so I don't understand exactly how we're supposed to do this. My coach said PF is NOT supposed to have a framework.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:31:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:29:18 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:25:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:22:27 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:21:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?

The only glaring problem I see is trying to justify WHY developed countries are responsible for their actions. That's why I personally wouldn't go for it.

Ah. How would you set up the case then? I'm really having trouble with this.

Well, I really couldn't say. I'm new to PF. I used to do policy, so...

I'll post back here if/when I think of something. You could always ask thett3. He's been doing PF for like, 3 years now.

I'll have to locate him. It's a pretty messed up PF topic. I'm typically an LDer, so I don't understand exactly how we're supposed to do this. My coach said PF is NOT supposed to have a framework.

I only thought about frameworks because I saw the word "moral." So...I dunno.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:39:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:31:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:29:18 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:25:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:22:27 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:21:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:17:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:06:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Utility does make more sense. It also is a lot easier to explain to lay judges than the categorical imperative.

Do you have any particular flaws you see in the arguments I set up a few points ago?

The only glaring problem I see is trying to justify WHY developed countries are responsible for their actions. That's why I personally wouldn't go for it.

Ah. How would you set up the case then? I'm really having trouble with this.

Well, I really couldn't say. I'm new to PF. I used to do policy, so...

I'll post back here if/when I think of something. You could always ask thett3. He's been doing PF for like, 3 years now.

I'll have to locate him. It's a pretty messed up PF topic. I'm typically an LDer, so I don't understand exactly how we're supposed to do this. My coach said PF is NOT supposed to have a framework.

I only thought about frameworks because I saw the word "moral." So...I dunno.

That's what I thought, too. You really have to have a framework for there to be anything close to morality present in a debate.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:58:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If its PF then I don't think the debaters or the judges will make a big deal out of what morality means. If you take a practical approach and prove that 1. Nations are causing global warming and 2. Nations can stop global warming with little trade-off, you will win most rounds. The same applies vice-versa for the neg.
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 8:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dunno if its been mentioned, but a good neg argument can be found in that it's already too late to turn back the effects of climate change and the real moral obligation if one exists lies in helping the world adapt to the coming changes
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right