Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Foreign Policy LD Topic

WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:25:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

I'm basically trying to get a feel for this topic because I don't quite understand all the angles, if any, and the hierarchy of my school places PF debaters above any LD debaters. So, I want to know exactly how the two relate and how targeted killing can be good and bad.

What philosophies can be used to support and negate this? Utilitarianism can be used for, and pacifism can be used against, but what else?
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly, it would depend on how the killing is being done, and why.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:33:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So is that argument moral skepticism? So, because it is impossible to know if it is morally permissible, it is by fault not permissible...?
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:33:25 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
So is that argument moral skepticism? So, because it is impossible to know if it is morally permissible, it is by fault not permissible...?

What?
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:37:27 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:33:25 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
So is that argument moral skepticism? So, because it is impossible to know if it is morally permissible, it is by fault not permissible...?

What?

I guess I'm trying to say that because it depends on the circumstances, we could argue that we can be skeptical, so the targeted killing requires moral skepticism, and because it requires determination by a standard we can't set, it is by default immoral.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:42:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:25:46 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

I'm basically trying to get a feel for this topic because I don't quite understand all the angles, if any, and the hierarchy of my school places PF debaters above any LD debaters. So, I want to know exactly how the two relate and how targeted killing can be good and bad.

What philosophies can be used to support and negate this? Utilitarianism can be used for, and pacifism can be used against, but what else?

Lolwut?

Anyway, one thing I would say for the Aff (just throwing this out there) is that the U.S. uses targeted killings to take out wartime enemies. For some reason a lot of people think that killing and murder during war is justified and acceptable; I don't really see how but there are probably some philosophers supporting that position. It's just a tool of war
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
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:42:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

I did LD in high school, and I can tell you right now that Kant is a bad choice. None of the people who run Kant understand his ideas, and the judges are usually random parents, so they do not either.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:43:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

Ooh. I just looked him up. He wasn't on sparknotes, but I found him on another site and this is really helpful. Are you talking about his 'Perpetual Peace' essay or all of his philosophies in general?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:43:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:42:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

I did LD in high school, and I can tell you right now that Kant is a bad choice. None of the people who run Kant understand his ideas, and the judges are usually random parents, so they do not either.

Ok, I retract my statement. Do whatever.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:43:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:42:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

I did LD in high school, and I can tell you right now that Kant is a bad choice. None of the people who run Kant understand his ideas, and the judges are usually random parents, so they do not either.

Ok, I retract my statement. Do whatever.

Nah. He's actually a good idea. As long as I limit what I use to certain and definite concepts, I think he can be expressed. I would just have to keep it broad..
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:45:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:42:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

I did LD in high school, and I can tell you right now that Kant is a bad choice. None of the people who run Kant understand his ideas, and the judges are usually random parents, so they do not either.

I once watched an LD round (quarter finals no less) where the girl (neg) had this case:

C1: Morality is subjective
C2: Kant says no to the resolution

Lolwut? If morality is subjective theres no reason to prefer Kant...
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
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:45:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:43:10 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

Ooh. I just looked him up. He wasn't on sparknotes, but I found him on another site and this is really helpful. Are you talking about his 'Perpetual Peace' essay or all of his philosophies in general?

Kant's "Groundwork" is on sparknotes. It's a little iffy as RP mentioned, it's ultimately up to you. I've never had to argue a case to random parents, and it would certainly be above and beyond what is expected of a 15 year old.
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:47:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:39:41 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:37:27 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:33:25 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
So is that argument moral skepticism? So, because it is impossible to know if it is morally permissible, it is by fault not permissible...?

What?

I guess I'm trying to say that because it depends on the circumstances, we could argue that we can be skeptical, so the targeted killing requires moral skepticism, and because it requires determination by a standard we can't set, it is by default immoral.

Well, I was referring to what that post was meant to be a reply to, but meh.

To be fair, the only way to recognize whether or not a killing is moral or not is to how and why the killing was performed/nessesary.

If the killing was to prevent unnessary genoicde in a country, than yes that would be acceptable and moral. Perhaps even admirable.

But if the killing was to a posistion in a governmental law, or leglisature, then yes that would be both immoral and inacceptable.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:48:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:45:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:42:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

I did LD in high school, and I can tell you right now that Kant is a bad choice. None of the people who run Kant understand his ideas, and the judges are usually random parents, so they do not either.

I once watched an LD round (quarter finals no less) where the girl (neg) had this case:

C1: Morality is subjective
C2: Kant says no to the resolution

Lolwut? If morality is subjective theres no reason to prefer Kant...

Yeah, any Selbe, any mention of moral relativism or subjetivism is anathema to these types of debates.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Selbe, are you debating this on the circuit or is this for a local/state level competiton?

Be wary of which philosophers you use. You can run anything on the circuit, but run philosophers whose ideas closely match the political sentiments of your area. In the North, for example, Rawls is usually a good idea, but in the South, he would probably not be a great choice.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:58:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:54:14 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:43:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

What exactly is the categorical imperative?

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it will become a universal law.

^Taken from Groundwork, p.31. You're lucky you've caught me in the midst of a Kant essay.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 5:02:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:58:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:54:14 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:43:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

What exactly is the categorical imperative?

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it will become a universal law.

^Taken from Groundwork, p.31. You're lucky you've caught me in the midst of a Kant essay.

Heh... what exactly does that mean?
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 5:03:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:57:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Selbe, are you debating this on the circuit or is this for a local/state level competiton?

Be wary of which philosophers you use. You can run anything on the circuit, but run philosophers whose ideas closely match the political sentiments of your area. In the North, for example, Rawls is usually a good idea, but in the South, he would probably not be a great choice.

It's local.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 12:26:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:39:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:35:48 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:34:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Kant would say no.

Kant..?

If you really want to impress your judges and befuddle your fellow debaters you should probably bring up Immanuel Kant. I would recommend just a sparknotes search on him, but he's a major player in moral philosophy.

He's not well known outside academia and especially not among 15 year olds, but if you get his arguments he can do the con side a great service.

Kant is really big in debate. Even if most people don't run him, almost everyone has heard of him and knows of his basic beliefs.

On the topic, here's your staple aff argument.

1. Targeted killing key to winning WoT.
2. Winning WoT key to preventing nuclear terror.

Negs are obviously going to be all like "well it violates the geneva convention and international law". This is easily responded to because the resolution asks what is moral, and International Law doesn't determine whats moral, just whats legal. Negs will also say that killing is bad, which you just outweigh by arguing that targeted killing saves more than it takes.
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 12:28:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 5:02:46 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:58:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:54:14 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:43:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

What exactly is the categorical imperative?

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it will become a universal law.

^Taken from Groundwork, p.31. You're lucky you've caught me in the midst of a Kant essay.

Heh... what exactly does that mean?

Sorry for interrupting. What the categorical imperative means is that you first have to formulate a maxim i.e. a ethical statment of guidance. For instance, let's take suicide (which is one of Kant's example in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of morals). The maxim could be "Out of self-love, I can end my life if I am suffering."

Then you would universalize it (meaning, it should become a duty everyone must fulfill to satisfy the moral law). Then you critique the maxim itself for any inconsistencies or contradictions. For Kant, the concept of self-love is fundamentally incompatabile with self-destruction. So the maxim "Out of self-love, I can end my life if I am suffering" can be tossed out since it's contradictory.

It's a pretty neat system and very rational (it relies only on reason to ground morals whereas utilitarianism relies on experiences/consequences).

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is that rational beings are ends in themselves, and never a means (Kant calls this the kingdom of ends). So for Kant, you can never use another rational being as a means to end even if that end we would classify as "good". If you kill one person to save ten, for Kant that would be immoral since you used that person as a means to an end (saving ten people).

Very interesting, but Kantian ethics is a very inflexible system (for instance, you have a perfect duty to always tell the truth even if the consequences are horrendous).

I would agree with OMGJB, tho, if you could pull out Kant, I would give you a high degree of difficulty points, but at the same time, you run the risk of having Kantian ethics go over the heads of judges, opponents, and/or the audience. I would run it by your trainer or captain first.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 12:32:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 12:28:50 AM, Skyhook wrote:

I would agree with OMGJB, tho, if you could pull out Kant, I would give you a high degree of difficulty points, but at the same time, you run the risk of having Kantian ethics go over the heads of judges, opponents, and/or the audience. I would run it by your trainer or captain first.

Running Kant with lay judges is ok, you just have to put it in laymen's terms and make the warrants really clear. You also have to be good at refuting Util, since most people will be running it.
Guitar_Guru
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 5:59:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 4:47:14 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:39:41 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:37:27 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 2/21/2012 4:33:25 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
So is that argument moral skepticism? So, because it is impossible to know if it is morally permissible, it is by fault not permissible...?

What?

I guess I'm trying to say that because it depends on the circumstances, we could argue that we can be skeptical, so the targeted killing requires moral skepticism, and because it requires determination by a standard we can't set, it is by default immoral.

Well, I was referring to what that post was meant to be a reply to, but meh.

To be fair, the only way to recognize whether or not a killing is moral or not is to how and why the killing was performed/nessesary.

If the killing was to prevent unnessary genoicde in a country, than yes that would be acceptable and moral. Perhaps even admirable.

Well against that (If I were on the Neg) I would say the lesser of two evils is still evil, just because its necessary to prevent some greater harm doesn't make it morally permissible. Then I would read off some cards that say that.

But if the killing was to a posistion in a governmental law, or leglisature, then yes that would be both immoral and inacceptable.
Guitar_Guru
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 6:02:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm an LD Debater too, but worse, I'm a novice. So I always have parent judges....

I don't know what I'm running on the Aff but on the Neg I'm running the Love Kritik by bell hooks, and an article I found where in certain countries, rather than killing their threat, they reform them and capture them. It's proven in the article its much more effective than killing them.
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 11:33:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 12:32:26 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 2/22/2012 12:28:50 AM, Skyhook wrote:

I would agree with OMGJB, tho, if you could pull out Kant, I would give you a high degree of difficulty points, but at the same time, you run the risk of having Kantian ethics go over the heads of judges, opponents, and/or the audience. I would run it by your trainer or captain first.

Running Kant with lay judges is ok, you just have to put it in laymen's terms and make the warrants really clear. You also have to be good at refuting Util, since most people will be running it.

Very true. The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals begins with Kant trying to take down the principle of utility, so that's a plus too. Kant's definitely a good reference for any moral debate.
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 11:36:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry, I don't know why I keep saying "Groundwork". I meant to say "Grounding".
http://www.amazon.com...

That's the version I was working with in my ethics course.