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
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

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

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Due to the waives, I'm counting Pro's R1 and Con's R2 as R1, and will continue in this manner throughout the debate.

R1: Pro concedes that morality is subjective. This is an interesting start, but it does give a lot of ground to Con from the get-go. He then tethers the moral obligation to subjective emotion, stating that, "I am obligated morally to do so because I am not an emotionally devoid psychopath." That is, his emotions are his obligation to help others. By tying moral obligation to emotion, he is able to argue that people without that obligation are psychopaths. Furthermore, he claims that in order to argue that people have no moral obligation to help others, one is forced to argue that morality does not exist.

The inherent problem with that argument is that Con has no issue with arguing that morality does not exist. In fact, he takes the position that, if morality is subjective, then "all moral statements are false." He also asserts that inductive reasoning is false. However, he does not provide evidence for this. Instead, he quotes a philosopher who agrees with this position. However, just because a person has a PhD next to their name does not mean that quoting their opinions is evidence. Quoted bare assertions are still bare assertions. Con also argues that individual identity does not exist. Again, rather than provide an argument to back that up, he quotes the bare assertions from people with PhDs beside their names.
Con rebuts Pro's argument by pointing to Pro's concession that morality is subjective, then it is impossible to have an objective moral obligation. He also argues that the appeal to emotions doesn't give any warrant for moral obligations.

R2: Pro misinterprets Con, thinking that Con denied our existence in total. However, his rebuttal that it would be impossible to vote for Pro as he doesn't exist still applies to Con's actual assertion that individual identity doesn't exist, so that point is effectively refuted. Pro then makes a confusing statement that Con dismisses as nonsense. That was a mistake, because after parsing it out, I found that it actually made an effective point. "I tether the win condition of Con to admit that emotions and morality rooted in obligation derived from subjective duties and meanings attributed to things." At first, this seems like mumbo jumbo. When parsed, you can see that A (emotions and morality rooted in obligation) was derived from B (subjective duties and meanings attributed to things). Pro's argument here is that morality and the obligations thereof are derived from subjective duties and subjective meanings. With this, he is attempting to draw out moral obligations from subjectivity. However, he drops Con's argument that inductive reasoning is invalid. He then repeats his assertion that denying the moral obligation to help others is to deny morality.

Con begins by repeating his argument that, if morality is subjective, there cannot be any objective moral statements. He does attempt to defend his assertion that individual identity doesn't exist by pointing to the philosophers he cited. However, as I said earlier, quoting bare assertions from people with PhDs doesn't qualify as evidence. He then admits the truth of Pro's confusing statement. However, since he's arguing that objective moral statements can't be made, acknowledging the existence of subjective morality doesn't hurt his case.

R3: Both sides essentially just restate their cases and don't introduce any new material.

Neither side had issues with sources, conduct, or S&G, so the only issue here is arguments. Pro's take on the debate is interesting. Arguing that moral obligation is derived from subjective emotion brilliantly works around Con's case. However, Con's case ultimately prevails. His argument that objective moral statements cannot be made if morality is subjective stands. By appealing to emotion, Pro makes a good case but ultimately succeeds in highlighting the failure of his side. So long as people have emotions of sympathy for others, he establishes that they have a sort of moral obligation. However, his mention of psychopaths is ultimately self-defeating, because they have no such emotions and therefore lack any obligation. He demonstrated that some people have a moral obligation to others, but failed to show that everyone does. Thus, Con wins the debate.

Congratulations to both debaters. This one was interesting and close. I think RM could have won if he'd put more effort into it and connected more dots, but that didn't happen this time around, although I was impressed by his ability to make a good argument even in a short round. Even so, both sides did well.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

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...

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro Wins

My reasons...
1. This whole debate, for me, boils down to the existence of an individual.
- If the individual does not exist then how could they have a moral obligation of any kind, which is what Con would argue, per C1
- If the individual exists than do they have a moral obligation to help those in need. Pro would say that if you are not a psychopath than you have an intrinsic obligation to help those in need.
- My thoughts: This "C1" argument by Con is very weak against Pro's appeal to the reader's own sense of humanity.

2. The other point in this debate that is important, in my view as a judge, is the subjectivity of morality argument
- Pro concedes that morality is subjective, but claims even in subjective morality looking at objectively one would have to agree that morality is a part of the human empathetic condition and therefore, again unless one is a psychopath, morality is foundational to humanity. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)
- Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.
- My thoughts: Con's use of the "Identity is Fluid" argument was well played against Pro's concession of subjective morality but was it enough?

Final comment. DId Pro do enough to prove that "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need?" Though it was close, what flipped my vote toward Pro, is their appeal to humanity and the intrinsic human empathetic condition. This appeal is was very powerful and, imho, proved Con's "C1: Ontology" argument invalid, which was critical to Con's side of the debate.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is a simple decision. Pro’s argument functions as one large concession. Con’s argument that the subjectivity of his impacts fundamentally invalidates any attempt to affirm the resolution, and Pro drops that, instead focusing back on his appeals to emotion and some rather troubling ad hominem positions against the voters. Assuming I didn’t like that, though, I have a lot of other ways to make this vote simple. Con’s argument about individual identity not existing or being fluid if it does exist goes either fully dropped or mishandled by Pro, who equates the nonexistence of identity with nonexistence in general. That misunderstanding does nothing to bolster his case, nor does dropping the burdens debate that ascribes Pro a clear and unmet burden to meet a specific standard of support for his argument. In the end, Pro left too much on the table to justify voting for him, and his argument doesn’t do enough to sway a voter on this resolution. Hence, I vote Con.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This was an interesting topic, and debate. Let's do an overview of what happened.

So Pro started off this debate, with compelling arguments about empathy and being human. Pro even states how there's a limit to what we can do (first we must take care of our selves). I find that this cements Pro's case ever further, and it provides a clearer definition to Pro's view.

Con then followed, providing three philosophical arguments (metaethics, ontology, and epistemology). All three were backed up with quotes from reliable sources.

Pro then goes. Pro states how Con's formatting is off, and then proceeds to argue against Con's text, and supports his own.

Con then shapes his text into a similar fashion, with supports of his own text, and arguing of Pro's text.

At this point forward, the debate kind of falls apart. Both sides are pointing out the flaws in the other sides text indirectly, instead of arguing directly. A lot of repetition and back and forth here.

So here's my final say. Pro made arguments about emotion and empathy, and how it's basically doing the right thing. Con makes arguments relating to philosophical claims and theories. In terms of arguments, I felt like Con had the better case, however, Pro does a great job with clash, nullifying the arguments.

I acknowledge that new arguments weren't supposed to be in Round 2 and 3, however, I expected a more in depth analysis or extension of previous arguments. I also fell like the clash could have been improved, as it sounded like a back and forth conversation. Maybe try providing new evidence to support previous claims (if that's allowed)? But a debate with only one round of actual arguments but four rounds of actual debate is something I would never do.

So I concede that it was a tie.

End.