DEFINITION OF OUGHT
“my opponent has only chosen one specific definition of "ought". Consider the other definitions -- , advisability--ought
to take care of yourself, natural expectation--ought
to be here by now, or logical consequence.”
PRO states that there are alternative definitions to “ought.”
CON counters that the majority of these alternative definitions do not fit the context of the Resolution, and if they do, they do not alter the meaning in a meaningful way. This effectively leaves CON’s first contention in R1 completely unrefuted.
CON asks the voter to consider grammatical context.
In cases of advisability, the word “ought” is linked to the preceding noun or pronoun in the sentence. For example,
“You ought to be more careful.”
The word “ought” is linked to the pronoun “you.”
In the resolution: “Resolved: seldiora ought to be at least employed in an internship”
The word “ought,” if interpreted as advisability, is linked to “Seldiora.”
Under the context of the resolution, advisability would simply be advising Seldiora to be employed.
Clearly, under this particular context, “ought” is not referencing advisability.
CON argues that cases of “natural expectation” would not alter the meaning of the Resolution in a way that refutes CON’s R1 argument.
RECALL CON’s R1: “By saying that “seldiora ought to be employed,” PRO is saying that seldiora is owed a position due to their credentials and experience.”
Under the resolution, if PRO were to argue that it is a natural expectation for Seldiora to be employed, it would be the same as arguing that Seldiora is obligated employment. CON’s R1 argument would stand unrefuted.
Logical consequence does not make sense given the context of the Resolution.
Logical consequence is a reaction. In other words, it only works if there is a preceding action or condition to react to in the first place.
The resolution does not give an action to react to, thus “ought” does not reference logical consequence.
“When you consider it as an advise that companies should hire me, or expect that, if I apply, I should have what it takes to be hired, then it makes much more sense.”
The resolution does not ask whether seldiora will get hired if he applies, the resolution asks whether he is obligated a job. PRO says yes, CON says no.
“My opponent also only appeals to America as a potential outlet for jobs, but I should be able to relocate anywhere, if I was truly free. Unless my opponent proves that no government
in the world should give its people or immigrant jobs, if they are able and willing to work (and otherwise no money whatsoever), then he has failed his argument.”
If Seldiora were given a job by the government of a foreign country, as PRO seems to advocate for, that would be government distribution of labor (i.e. Communism).
If capitalism and the free movement of private labor were stopped, that would be a negative effect in any country seldiora chooses to move to. Capitalism has reduced world poverty by 86
% in 36 years.
On the other hand, communist ideals have led to about
61 million deaths in the Soviet Union, 78 million deaths in China, and roughly 200 million deaths worldwide.
If Seldiora’s mother is unsuccessful in her startup, this was not implied in the description or R1 of the debate.
PRO gives additional information about the Global Tech startup in their R2, and it becomes clear that it is not truly established as a startup like he implied earlier.
Remember, all PRO said in the description and R1 about Global Tech is that: "Global Technology is a small start-up initiated by my mother." He criticized it for being small and not as established, but there was no implication that Global Tech was scandalous or unestablished.
Thus, CON operated under the assumption that Global Tech was an established startup with a fair and working business model. Normally, CON might contest the misleading information as unfair, but in this case the information is highly personal to PRO.
So, in this case, CON will forgive PRO for the confusion and simply asks voters to drop their 2nd contention argument from consideration entirely. SUMMARY:
CON’s original definition of “ought” is by far the most sensible one, and thus CON’s first contention stands unrefuted.
PRO gives new information in their R2 which completely opposes their initial implication that Global Tech was a legitimate and working startup. CON forgives PRO, and asks that voters drop CON’s 2nd Contention from their consideration entirely.
CON's 1st Contention will suffice to defeat the resolution.