Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The New LD topic is a pufo topic

wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:34:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Yup, a pufo topic. Everyone who does or debates LD just got a giant middle finger.

Seeing as I judge LD and debate at college :) I can make this claim.
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 1:42:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No it isn't...the resolution is very much morality oriented
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 1:44:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:34:09 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Yup, a pufo topic. Everyone who does or debates LD just got a giant middle finger.

Seeing as I judge LD and debate at college :) I can make this claim.

Would you like to debate on that?
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2009 1:42:39 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
No it isn't...the resolution is very much morality oriented

The only morality behind it is possibly the word ought
Broken
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 5:47:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But you see, it is so much morally intended. Sit down and let me tell you a story. Many many years ago in a land with many Asians..... ok getting to the good part..... There was a man named Kenshin Uesugi, you see, he was a Japanese warlord. He had a rival, Shogun (or something like that). Kenshin Uesugi was at war with Shogun. He had managed to cut Shogun off from salt, fish & rice. Salt, fish & rice have a lot to do with survival in Japan (and somehow relate to the enrichment of uranium in Iran). Anyways, Kenshin, being the moral sap that he his..... uh..... being the good person that he is, gave Shogun salt, fish & rice. Blah blah blah, random crap, Shogun ate a lot of fish and rice and became a sumo wrestler. He then fell on Kenshin Uesugi.

The End...

Ok maybe that's not exactly how it happened but you get my point. To discuss morals you must understand the importance of salt, fish & rice.
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 5:40:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 4:26:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Well, it's possible to argue against such an arrangement, but most judges don't buy into it.

Disagree I ran an autocracy (lewin) aff basically authoritarianism is needed for compulsory immunizations because people cannot make decisions and used rights don't exist but rather resposibilities did and won 3 out of 3 times debating with it.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 5:51:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 5:40:19 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:26:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Well, it's possible to argue against such an arrangement, but most judges don't buy into it.

Disagree I ran an autocracy (lewin) aff basically authoritarianism is needed for compulsory immunizations because people cannot make decisions and used rights don't exist but rather resposibilities did and won 3 out of 3 times debating with it.

I meant that, where I debate, judges don't buy into it. Plus, 3/3 is hardly an extensive test. It's pretty easy to beat stupid people using just about anything.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 5:52:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 5:51:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 5:40:19 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:26:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Well, it's possible to argue against such an arrangement, but most judges don't buy into it.

Disagree I ran an autocracy (lewin) aff basically authoritarianism is needed for compulsory immunizations because people cannot make decisions and used rights don't exist but rather resposibilities did and won 3 out of 3 times debating with it.

I meant that, where I debate, judges don't buy into it. Plus, 3/3 is hardly an extensive test. It's pretty easy to beat stupid people using just about anything.

Fair enough but 3/3 is a 100% winning streak. Your, judges must be stupid. Are you debating in highschool or college?
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 6:53:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 5:40:19 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:26:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Well, it's possible to argue against such an arrangement, but most judges don't buy into it.

Disagree I ran an autocracy (lewin) aff basically authoritarianism is needed for compulsory immunizations because people cannot make decisions and used rights don't exist but rather resposibilities did and won 3 out of 3 times debating with it.

Responsibilities are baseless without rights. Autocracy is in no way prohibitive of natural rights, its merely prohibitive of unintelligent autonomy, in fact, its basis is the prioritization of natural rights over autonomy.
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 9:48:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 6:53:28 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
At 12/8/2009 5:40:19 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:26:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Well, it's possible to argue against such an arrangement, but most judges don't buy into it.

Disagree I ran an autocracy (lewin) aff basically authoritarianism is needed for compulsory immunizations because people cannot make decisions and used rights don't exist but rather resposibilities did and won 3 out of 3 times debating with it.

Responsibilities are baseless without rights. Autocracy is in no way prohibitive of natural rights, its merely prohibitive of unintelligent autonomy, in fact, its basis is the prioritization of natural rights over autonomy.

fair enough but to cover my basis and knowing my opponent would have no time to prepare for such an aff argument to appear, I was able to contend with it.

No, you have no right to life because you are born but rather I have a responsibility to protect your life now that you are born to the best extent of my ability.
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 3:35:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 9:48:55 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/8/2009 6:53:28 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
At 12/8/2009 5:40:19 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:26:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:09:47 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
LD essentially assumes certain moral absolutes, among those are natural rights: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Well, it's possible to argue against such an arrangement, but most judges don't buy into it.

Disagree I ran an autocracy (lewin) aff basically authoritarianism is needed for compulsory immunizations because people cannot make decisions and used rights don't exist but rather resposibilities did and won 3 out of 3 times debating with it.

Responsibilities are baseless without rights. Autocracy is in no way prohibitive of natural rights, its merely prohibitive of unintelligent autonomy, in fact, its basis is the prioritization of natural rights over autonomy.

fair enough but to cover my basis and knowing my opponent would have no time to prepare for such an aff argument to appear, I was able to contend with it.

No, you have no right to life because you are born but rather I have a responsibility to protect your life now that you are born to the best extent of my ability.

Not sure I understand what your getting at...but in that case the value could be the fulfillment of moral duties.
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 5:02:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A action must maximize natural rights in order to be moral, subjective morality really has no place in LD
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 5:07:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2009 5:02:05 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
A action must maximize natural rights in order to be moral, subjective morality really has no place in LD

Isn't that subjective? It assumes that, one, natural rights exist, and two, that maximization of rights is automatically moral (without an explanation as to why).
pcmbrown
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)
"Did I shock you with this discovery.? Of curse not..!!"-banker
Broken
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2009 10:49:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everyone ignored my salt, fish, & rice thing... Anyways, as to where that came from... I was giving an authorship speech in an all-congress tournament for a bill about nukes & Iran & somebody gave that speech in negation, all though it was affirmatives turn to speak.
oceanix
Posts: 747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 7:44:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2009 4:25:25 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/6/2009 1:42:39 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
No it isn't...the resolution is very much morality oriented

The only morality behind it is possibly the word ought

The only morality around it is the word ought, but that leads to an interpretation of the resolution that's completely morally based.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 5:02:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)

How does one set up a nietzche case seeing as you can't value morality
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 5:04:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 5:02:45 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)

How does one set up a nietzche case seeing as you can't value morality?

Try a value of fairness, and perhaps a criterion of Moral Nihilism?
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 5:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 5:04:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:02:45 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)

How does one set up a nietzche case seeing as you can't value morality?

Try a value of fairness, and perhaps a criterion of Moral Nihilism?

That's what I was thinking but at the same time contention wise would you use the Will to Power? the cognitive theory?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 5:09:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 5:07:23 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:04:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:02:45 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)

How does one set up a nietzche case seeing as you can't value morality?

Try a value of fairness, and perhaps a criterion of Moral Nihilism?

That's what I was thinking but at the same time contention wise would you use the Will to Power? the cognitive theory?

I wouldn't really run any of that. I would just go through and attack the notion of anything being moral or immoral. If immorality doesn't exist, one cannot feasibly say that there is a moral obligation NOT to use sanctions
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 5:13:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 5:09:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:07:23 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:04:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:02:45 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)

How does one set up a nietzche case seeing as you can't value morality?

Try a value of fairness, and perhaps a criterion of Moral Nihilism?

That's what I was thinking but at the same time contention wise would you use the Will to Power? the cognitive theory?

I wouldn't really run any of that. I would just go through and attack the notion of anything being moral or immoral. If immorality doesn't exist, one cannot feasibly say that there is a moral obligation NOT to use sanctions

Ah, so it would be more of an Aff argument? I would've thought neg seeing as sanctions can't possibly moral nor immoral. But, yes I can see where I may have read what you typed wrong. But why would you not throw a straw man argument and then focus on one powerful neg contention but make sure you make your straw man look big, such as the will to power be the straw man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 5:37:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 5:13:07 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:09:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:07:23 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:04:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2009 5:02:45 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/10/2009 9:49:01 PM, pcmbrown wrote:
locke, kant, even hobbes (i think) support the idea of rights. all mainstream philosophers do. if u try to run nietzche, judges will drop you 99% of the time (in oregon at least)

How does one set up a nietzche case seeing as you can't value morality?

Try a value of fairness, and perhaps a criterion of Moral Nihilism?

That's what I was thinking but at the same time contention wise would you use the Will to Power? the cognitive theory?

I wouldn't really run any of that. I would just go through and attack the notion of anything being moral or immoral. If immorality doesn't exist, one cannot feasibly say that there is a moral obligation NOT to use sanctions


Ah, so it would be more of an Aff argument? I would've thought neg seeing as sanctions can't possibly moral nor immoral. But, yes I can see where I may have read what you typed wrong. But why would you not throw a straw man argument and then focus on one powerful neg contention but make sure you make your straw man look big, such as the will to power be the straw man.

No, it would be neg. If nothing is immoral, then the aff cannot say that we ought not employ economic sanctions as a means of pursuing foreign policy objectives; however, your tactics are underhanded and slimy, I'd wager. If your argument is good enough to win, you don't need to set up a diversionary argument. Just use three coherent arguments to explain why an objective, legitimate notion of morality cannot possibly exist.