Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

LD "Ace" Case?

Clockwork
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 5:44:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The new LD resolution is "Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization."

I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried a case with moral nihilism as a negative criterion for any "justified" case. Theoretically, if moral nihilism could be reasonably established, I could use it as a "backup" Neg case for practically every resolution. ANy thoughts?
Felonial Disenfranchisement: http://www.debate.org...
Poverty v. Environmental Protection: http://www.debate.org...
On God and Free Will: http://www.debate.org...
Clockwork
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 6:36:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I suppose that is true. Certain judges seem to lag behind if the debaters use words exceeding three syllables (deontology).
Felonial Disenfranchisement: http://www.debate.org...
Poverty v. Environmental Protection: http://www.debate.org...
On God and Free Will: http://www.debate.org...
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I presume that by moral nihilism, you mean that morality does not exist, and/or is meaningless.

If you establish moral nihilism, what reason is there to vote for your side? Why is the negative preferable, if there is no system with which to give preference?

By arguing for moral nihilism, you contradict yourself. If morality does not exist or has no meaning, why are you arguing about it? It obviously has value if you are willing to debate it.
Clockwork
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:10:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The establishment of moral nihilism displaces the Affirmative burden and defaults the ballot to Con. While moral nihilism could technically be used as an Affirmative criterion as well (by showing that everything is justified), it would be tough to pull off because such a stance is easily used to displace any sort of moral obligation.

If there is no moral obligation, however, PRO automatically loses.
Felonial Disenfranchisement: http://www.debate.org...
Poverty v. Environmental Protection: http://www.debate.org...
On God and Free Will: http://www.debate.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2009 9:23:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Moral Nihlism only works as a CON case, due to burden of proof. Interesting you should think of this. A powerful and universal case would be very useful.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2009 11:09:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/9/2009 9:23:09 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Moral Nihlism only works as a CON case, due to burden of proof. Interesting you should think of this. A powerful and universal case would be very useful.

Disagree 100%. the resolution talks about JUSTIFICATION. This does not equate to just. Justified means permissible and if there is no system for the moral evaluation of an action, any action is therefore morally justifiable. These types of resolutions often can switch the presumption to the Aff.

Also you might want to take a look at the differences between different forms of moral skepticism as some work better for this type case than nihilism.
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 3:13:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 5:10:31 AM, Clockwork wrote:
The establishment of moral nihilism displaces the Affirmative burden and defaults the ballot to Con. While moral nihilism could technically be used as an Affirmative criterion as well (by showing that everything is justified), it would be tough to pull off because such a stance is easily used to displace any sort of moral obligation.

If there is no moral obligation, however, PRO automatically loses.

Would moral nihilism be your only value?