African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/14/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,067 times | Debate No: | 58968 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)
 Pro  Con I accept. I am eagerly awaiting arguments for this unconventional and seemingly absurd motion. |
 |
|
Pro Had you been a student of Logic, you would agree that proving my statement only requires a single supporting example. I will explain if you need me to. My grandfather is named Calle - he fought in Africa during WW2. The guys often used racism to achieve military objectives in the war against Montgomery. As an example senior officers would shout racial slurs to "locals" to herd them away from the Battlefield. This would hurt the locals pride, but they would indeed run away which saved a lot of lives. Saving lives, all life, must be considered a good deed, even if it means having Nazis shouting the N-word and spitting in Your face. Another example would be a hillbilly shouting racial slurs to African-Americans that for some reason did not hear what was shouted. The Hillbilly feels satisfied and no one got hurt. I think we can agree that I have provided you with two valid examples. You might not agree With the morals of my main characters, but the argument holds. Con I am a student of logic, and as such I can say your arguments are red herrings. The resolution: "African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies" Wrong:" not in accordance with what is morally right or good". In order to fulfil the BoP, my opponent must first prove foreign aid in Africa is morally wrong. I don't even have to prove that it's right, but I will. Providing African Americans With Aid Is Moral: A)Deontological Ethics : "Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules." Categorical Imperative: " Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" P1) If not performing an act, would result in a less favorable universe, then the act is moral. P2) Providing aid to starving and dying Africans results in a favorable universe. C1) Providing aid to Africans is moral Syllogism defense of P2: P1)Dying and starving is less desirable than not starving and dying P2) Promoting death prevention(not dying) and prevention of starving is favorable C1) Providing aid to starving and dying Africans results in a favorable universe. Syllogism 2 neccesarily substantiates P2 in syllogism 1. In regards to Deontology, aid in Africa is moral. B) Consequentialism: "Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences." P1) If not performing an act, results in worse consequences than performing the act, the act is moral. P2) Not providing aid to Africans results in worse consequences, than providing aid. C1) Providing aid to African's is moral Defense of P2: Although the system is not perfect, not sending aid to Africa will result in much more death and starvation. Death and starvation are bad consequences. So acting in a way that reduces death and starvation is moral. In regards to consequentialism, sending aid to Africa is moral. Part 2 Of The Resolution: In addition to proving sending aid is wrong, he must also prove spending the aid money on popcorn and movies is more moral and productive. (Hundreds of billions on popcorn and movies). As aforementioned, taking away all aid would have bad consequences. I maintain that spending it on popcorn and movies would not result in better consequences. BoP is on pro to show that it would. Pro must convincingly prove this second part of the resolution, he just can't maintain it by default. Noll Hypothesis: " A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis." So unless he can conclusively prove allocating the money to popcorn and movies would result in better consequences, he can't fulfill his BoP. Aid Is In Accordance With The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: Article 25.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.un.org... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.investopedia.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... |
 |
|
Pro thethief forfeited this round.
|
 |
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
| thethief | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: ff. wtf
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
| thethief | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by YaHey 7 years ago
| thethief | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last round. Con didn't try to justify their position and instead tried to justify racism. Pro didn't need to prove that the resolution is false, but offered how aid to Africa is moral under two moral systems. Pro was the only participant to use sources.
There might be an evolutionary pressure to become more moral, but believe me, nature has never chosen morals before survival. Give me an historical example not using the blink of time that is the last few thousand years...
Morals will be a welcome human attribute one day in the future. for now lets focus on survival. Helping somebody extend their lives by just enough time to procreate one last time does not help. Movies and popcorn are the bread to Our Circus - a necessary Resource that should only be spent on those that carry their weight. We do, Africans don't.
Your arguments are barking up the wrong tree. You are welcome to help us hyenas, but do not expect the favor in Return. At least not until we hyenas have the Technology that Ensures Our survival and quality of living.
Feel free to vote again...