Instigator / Con
4
1558
rating
4
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1710

Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
2

After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Zaradi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

R1 - Con waives, pro posts case
R2 - Con case + rebuttals, pro rebuttals
R3 - Con rebuttals, pro conclusion
R4 - con conclusion, pro waives

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con
>Reason for Decision:
1. Opening
Pro basically says that to not agree to some degree of obligation to help others in need of help, is to rooted in not being “an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.”
Some strong pathos appeals, some quite irrational, but extra credit for mentioning that cats need help (a little off topic, since of course we have a moral obligation to cats; but the debate is about people).
Pro seems to base his case on being either right or morality not existing. I’ll pretty much give the debate to him if con relies on morality is a wholesale lie (such would be a good debate topic, but it would be quite the bastard move to try in a debate he started....). Conversely, con gains significant ground if he shows morality existing but the resolution to be false for valid reasons.
Con wisely counters using pro’s own words, and points out: “outside of the [pathos] appeal there's zero warrant as to why individuals have moral obligations to help others.”
2. Ontology (the nature of being)
This is such a weird one, as con is the instigator, but he’s pulling what very closely resembles a Kritik. Glancing at the comment section, I do see that he gave double warning this was a philosophy debate (the other obvious option would be a politics debate, to imply something about what some story on the news).
So people might not exist as referenced in the resolution; and if they do, the “contents of their agency is always changing.” And it was formed by other people anyway.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
3. Epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
Con goes way deeper than is needed here, basically saying pro’s case is inductive and thus no good. I don’t find this to be strong, or directly connected to the arguments in question for this debate.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
4. Metaethics (the nature of ethics)
Con argues that the normative obligation is false because it’s not always true within other cultures (this would have been stronger if directly connected to other cultural groups, such as the millionaires pro mentioned).
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
5. We don’t exist
Pro makes a case that con made a case that we don’t exist. As a literate person, this is obviously false. Pro even uses his final round to mostly just extend this...

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote meets the minimum requirements in the Voting Policy for the vote to not be removed.
************************************************************************

-->
@David

this is utter bs. Your head mod of voting is mocking me saying I didn't address Con in the Round by quoting only sentence from me.

I'll try to go over this in the morning.

-->
@Zaradi

If I may, here is my short 1 sentence take on each of Con's "C" arguments along with a brief reason for why I voted for Pro. Perhaps I should have gone into more detail in the vote section?

C1: Ontology - Individuals do not exist therefore they can not have a moral code and therefore there is no moral obligation.
-Pro countered by invoking "epistemological nihilism" to this argument which I thought was a brilliant strategy and Pro's continued proposition that if Con does not exist he can not be voted for was very astute.

C2: Epistemology - Specific parts of a resolution can not be proven true therefore to use inductive reasoning to prove said resolution is a "fool's errand" (my words)
-In my opinion, this argument was a bit of non sequitur, though I enjoyed the geometric 2 plane theory. I say non sequitur because Con's statement that "inductive reasoning is false" does not have any supporting basis in truth and does not follow any other referenced argument. I don't believe Pro alluded to this argument, which I thought was wise since the argument was a non sequitur.

C3: Metaethics - I must admit I was a bit confused by Con's overall point of C3. It seemed to me that Con was arguing that morality is subjective due to the differences in cultures among people. But then Con opened with a point about relativity that all "moral statements are false," but that did not follow with the previous point about subjective reality.
-The fact that Pro somewhat conceded the moral subjectivity point makes this argument a valid rebuttal point for Con. However, the fact that Con's argument also concedes that there is some moral code among cultures even though there is a "fluidity" to that morality leaves open the point that morality does exist.
-This C3 argument begs the question is Con making an argument that morality does not exist or that it does exist? It would have been helpful if Con would have chosen a consistent argument and stuck with it. Pro's side of the debate was much more consistent, another reason to vote for Pro.

-->
@RationalMadman

Not interested, then?

-->
@whiteflame

You are lying

-->
@RationalMadman

If you want me to elaborate, I can. It's mostly going to be directly quoting Zaradi because you dropped his points on the matter, but I'm willing.

He said your argument functioned *like* a concession, not that you conceded.

-->
@Zaradi

Whiteflame lied and said I even remotely conceded and didn't elaborate on anything like that.

-->
@whiteflame
@sigmaphil

Thanks for the votes!

@sigma

I have a couple questions.
First, when you say "Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.', what do you mean? It was my belief that C1 and C3 functioned independently of one another.
Second, how did you evaluate C3?
Third, how did you evaluate the attacks I made against Pro's case?

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [DynamicSquid] // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@Tejretics

<3 you tej

Disclaimer: I’m a feminist, I just can’t understand a word Judith Butler says and am not a fan of her thanks to the Avital Ronell thing.

My reaction at Zaradi’s third card:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzVc7s-_e8

-->
@RationalMadman
@Zaradi

Oh no no no. I still think it's a tie. It's just wanted to include more reasoning to my decision. Sorry if you misinterpreted that.

-->
@RationalMadman

I mean, I never asked him to change his vote. I just wanted some elaboration.

-->
@DynamicSquid

you can't just change your vote to appease a debater. I won this debate if you actually understand what I did with the chaotic strategy of saying 'voter your emotions decide this' and how I turned it against Con's own premises. You think it was a tie, don't change that. It's about you and your interpretation. If you want to 'compare' arguments, compare ALL together not one by one.

-->
@Zaradi

K, give me a while to change my vote

-->
@DynamicSquid

Just C3 is fine, like I've been asking.

-->
@Zaradi

Oh... so you want me to directly compare your arguments, against Con's arguments?

-->
@DynamicSquid

It's a pretty straight-forward question. I'll try to be more clear, though, so my apologies if this comes off as rude.

Your RFD boils down to "Pro made arguments. Con made arguments. Both sides clashed. I wanted to see more. So it's a tie." and doesn't really go any deeper than that. Hence why I want to know how specific arguments influenced this decision. So to make my question really simple:

Did you or did you not evaluate C3? If no, why not? If yes, what weight, if any, did you give the argument? If none, why?

-->
@Zaradi

No? Why would I do that?

I just don't seem to understand your question. Do you want me to rate how good your C3 argument was or something like that?

-->
@DynamicSquid

That doesn't answer my question >.> it kind of feels like you're intentionally dodging the question tbh

-->
@SirAnonymous

Agreed.

Do you prefer a topic with a more supportable base? Like something that uses facts to back it up?

-->
@Zaradi

C3 was viewed like 1 and 2. I considered them as three separate arguments.

-->
@DynamicSquid

"Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?"

I want to know how you evaluated C3 in your voting decision.

-->
@Zaradi

1. I feel like both of you should have stayed with brief points in the first round, and expanded them in the second and third rounds (or, whatever round comes next).

For you, maybe try explaining what those three topics are in your own words, and explain (again, in your own words) how they support your side. And in rounds two and three, then provide the quotes backing up this claim.

2. Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?

-->
@DynamicSquid

Thanks for the vote. Two questions:

1. What, in your eyes, would've been better extensions?
2. How did you evaluate C3?

-->
@RationalMadman

Dude, chill with the psychopath talk. This topic is an old high school debate topic I competed on that I enjoyed and I wanted to do another one. My arguments are almost never a reflection of my actual beliefs.

Enjoy your christmas.

-->
@Zaradi

Xmas eve is big thing for my family and I honestly don't care much about this debate. It's a fact and you're a psychopath if you're Con. It's that simple. Thanks for the reminder, but your wily waus probably won you the debate for all I know. I'll post last minute something.

-->
@RationalMadman

A friendly reminder that you have less than 12 hours to post your final round.

Debates about morality like this one bother me. You either have to establish the truth of an objective system of morality or appeal to the lowest common denominator and hope that you have common ground with your opponent to build on. Otherwise, it's impossible to objectively make a case.

I'm starting to get real tired of everyone calling anything that's vaguely philosophical a k.

-->
@Alec

It's not a politcs thing

I agree

This topic is pretty open ended, which can be cool, but can also be annoying.

-->
@drafterman

I mean, the resolution is pretty clearly "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." As for weed, I was just playing along with your example, though it was a shitty one to compare to this res in particular.

-->
@Zaradi

If that's the case then what is the debate even about? It's an objective fact whether or not weed is legal in a given legal code.

-->
@drafterman

Then it would be up to the person saying weed is illegal to say which legal code should be the one voters look at and why. That's not my job as con, though.

-->
@Zaradi

But it's like arguing "Weed is illegal." In some legal codes it is in some legal codes it isn't.

-->
@drafterman

There is no "context" to the debate. There's a topic. Its pro's job to affirm the topic and con's job to negate the topic.

-->
@Zaradi

Not the specific content of your arguments no, I'm trying to determine what the context of the debate is.

Is it: "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." is [insert specific moral theory here]
Or is it: Any moral theory that includes "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." as a precept is incorrect?

-->
@drafterman

Are you asking me what I plan on arguing?

-->
@Zaradi

But what's the counter? That it isn't a moral obligation within that theory or that theory shouldn't be selected in the first place?

-->
@drafterman

The pro is certainly free to make an argument for whatever moral theory they believe should be used.

-->
@Zaradi

What's the measure of "morality" here? If you are asking if there is at least one system of morality that makes this an obligation, that's an automatic decision. I think we can agree that, out of all the systems of morality, at least one of them says Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

On the flip side, if you are asking if all systems of morality have this as a requirement, that's also an automatic decision. I also think we can agree that there is at least one system that *doesn't* say Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Or is the assumption here that there is some sort of intrinsic, objective morality that exists and we are arguing whether or not "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need" is part of that system?

-->
@Alec

I'm more angling for the philosophical aspects of this topic, hence it being under the philosophy category, but those are certainly interesting thoughts.

-->
@Zaradi

It depends. If someone can´t depend on themselves, then yes. But if you can depend on yourself, then no. Both liberals and conservatives agree with this. The thing is, what counts as being able to work? I have a lenient definition. Anyone who isin´t both severely physically and mentally disabled while out of school should have a job and should not receive welfare.