Mysterious topic
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules: the odds are slightly stacked against con, I will pick a topic from https://www.speechanddebate.org/topics/, I am pro and opponent is con. The topic will be declared in round one
“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena”― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi
major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percenta campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacyRecognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regimeregime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining."civil disobedience is very hard to counter, and forces the government to listen.
- normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."
Morals mean "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". Standford has written an extensive summary analyzing this, and concluded with "descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
- normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."
he must fulfill the idea that people cannot use their freedom of speech guaranteed in the US (the most influential democracy) to say that they feel like what is wrong.
the democracy expectations and code of conduct
@realDonaldTrumpI can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right.....@realDonaldTrump....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group
all rational people.
Con states that civil disobedience is a physical change, but this is also illogical, as taking away the salt tax itself cannot be physically grasped in Ghandi's movement (you cannot touch the lack of something!), and is hence just as abstract as morality.
And having a doctor saving an innocent person from dying would not be morally just, despite our human desire to save each other, the obligation of the doctor himself.
Because civil disobedience protects our natural rights and gives us a way to speak up, in a way, it indirectly saves our lives (recall that Martin Luther King's movement to help blacks is just as symbolic against racism as it is against the past of slavery; though we moved past the direct lost of autonomy, during King's time, whites still viewed themselves superior to blacks and mistreated them heavily.)
There is nothing inherently wrong that he points out that goes directly against the code of conduct.
Interesting topic. Thanks to both debaters for a good read.
Arguments:
Pro opens by arguing that civil disobedience gives the populace political clout that can protect natural rights or oppose unjust policies. He cites Gandhi's resistance to the salt tax as an example. He also points out that people are more inclined to support civil disobedience than violent resistance.
Con counters with a Kritik undermining Pro's case. She argues that morality is an abstraction. Since the change sought by civil disobedience is physical, it is out of the bounds of morality. Thus, while civil disobedience may be politically justified, it is not morally justified.
Pro attempts to get around this Kritik by citing the definition of morality and showing how civil disobedience fulfills that definition. He also protests against Con's arguments by pointing to extreme cases such as murder not being unjust by Con's standard. He also argues that, for example, removing the salt tax is abstract and not physical and consequently has a moral dimension.
Con turns Pro's definition back on him. It says that morality "would be put forward by all rational people." Since the government has rational reasons to oppose civil disobedience, civil disobedience would not be put forward as right by all rational people. Thus, Pro's definition works against him. She also points out that a majority of Americans, at least some of whom are rational people, opposed the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement, using Pro's definition against him once again. She also points out that removing the salt tax would have physical consequences, so it is still amoral.
Pro argues that even a rational majority that opposes civil disobedience does not negate the ability of the minority to seek change. While true, this contradicts his definition, decimating his previous argument. Finally, he argues that Con has shown that there is anything inherently wrong with civil disobedience.
Con counters once again that governments have rational reasons to oppose civil disobedience. She argues that the wrongness of civil disobedience is that it violates the code of conduct (i.e. law and order) and leads to chaos.
Overall, Con outmaneuvered Pro at every turn. She undermined his foundation for morality and used his definition for morality against him. The arguments points clearly go to Con here.
No issues with S&G, conduct, or sources.
I would recommend to both debaters that they need to work on staying on message. While the debate was interesting and fun to read, both of you were just responding to each other and ignoring the arguments you made earlier in the debate. By the end of the debate, there was very little left of the arguments both of you made in the first round. Regardless, this was still a good debate to read. You made it fun for me to vote on it. Thanks.
Sure, if I get time. I'm kind of slammed atm
vote?
No forfeiting
This is unique, have fun!