Instigator / Pro
13
1300
rating
220
debates
44.77%
won
Topic
#4476

It would be good if every person gave to the people food which those people need in order to live

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

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

Best.Korea
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
8
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

Burden of proof is shared.

By good, I mean it should be a moral law, and those who have the option to follow it should follow it.

Round 1
Pro
#1
"It would be good" is defined as moral law that everyone should follow.

The topic:
"It would be good if every person gave to the people food which those people need in order to live".


People need food to live. Some people already have food and dont need more. Some people have more than they need to live. Some people have less than they need to live.

Everyone who has more food than food he needs to live should give the food he doesnt need to live to those who need that food to live.

Plenty of poor hungry people and plenty of obesity tell us that someone is eating someone's lunch. We could even say that Earth is failing to support more people because of people's unwillingness to help those who need food.

Human life, human liberty, human rights, human happiness are decreased and human pain is increased as a result of people refusing to help those who need food.


Conclusion:
It is true that "It would be good if every person gave to the people food which those people need in order to live".

Con
#2
Arg 1: "everyone"

Plenty of poor hungry people
Poor malnourished people are people, they are included Now then, the topic suggests that all people shall offer food in the grand purpose of redistribution not directed towards any definite entity, but merely arbitrarily the "people". This raises the question:
  • How would urging people who have zero or near zero food to offer food be any useful?
    • How is that even possible?
By good, I mean it should be a moral law, and those who have the option to follow it should follow it.
If something is a moral standard, it should at least be possible. Based on the first quotation of this argument typed, it appears that even Pro based his argument on one which makes such an action impossible. As a result, it would not be "good" if every person gave to the people food which those people need in order to live. I rest my case.


Round 2
Pro
#3
the topic suggests that all people shall offer food in the grand purpose of redistribution not directed towards any definite entity, but merely arbitrarily the "people"
These are just blatant lies regarding the topic of the debate.

It does not say "shall offer food". This is just Con trying to change the topic to something not even mentioned in the topic.

The entity getting the food is clearly described as entity that needs to get food to live.


How would urging people who have zero or near zero food to offer food be any useful?
How is that even possible?
The topic does not deal with what is possible, but with what would be good.

Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful? Irrelevant to the debate, since the debate does not even say that. I will answer with what this moral standard would result in.

Example: 
If we have a law which says: "Everyone must "give food to people" which those people need to live".
What would be the consequences of not following such law? That is where correction theory comes in place, which says that only if punishment corrects the people or results in good, only then such punishment should be done.
So obviously, if there is a blind, deaf and disabled person who cant move or talk, punishing such person would not correct him or result in good.

If someone cannot improve his own situation and can give food only to himself, others should help him improve his situation so that he may have or produce more and give more food to increase life. This is the logical step in this moral standard.

The result of this moral standard would be:

"It would be good if everyone gave to the people food which they need to live = it would be good to increase to the greatest the givng of food to people which those people need to live".

Therefore, this standard would result in helping many people.


If something is a moral standard, it should at least be possible.
Your argument is an assumption.

"Moral standard =/= should be possible". The point of a moral standard is to improve life, which this standard does to the greatest level. Moral law simply means action which is right.

For example, saying "it would be good if no one killed people" does not mean "no one will kill people" or "we can achieve that no one kills people". It still means we should have that standard and teach it.


Based on the first quotation of this argument typed, it appears that even Pro based his argument on one which makes such an action impossible.
To avoid your further misunderstanding, "it would be good" talks about what is good. Good sometimes may not be possible to be completely achieved. However, as typed in the description, it means that everyone who has the option to follow it should follow it.
"Everyone should follow it" does not mean "everyone can follow it".

"I cant do it" does not mean "I shouldnt do it".

Therefore, if "should" means "to have duty to do it if you can", then your argument is negated.
If "should" means "to have duty to do it even when you cant", then your argument is still negated.

If "moral law" means "it should be followed when possible", then your argument is negated.
If "moral law" means "it should be followed even when not possible", then your argument is negated.

Therefore, we see that your argument fails no matter how we define "should" and "moral law".

"Should" means correctness or duty in this case, and in this case it means something that is best to move closer to. Duty by itself means to try your best to do something.
For example, "I cant help" does not mean "I wont help if I can help" or "I dont have duty to help". If someone cant completely fullfill a duty, that does not mean he doesnt have that duty.


As a result, it would not be "good" if every person gave to the people food which those people need in order to live.
Your argument is:
"They cant give, so it would not be good if they give."

Which means that your argument says "not possible=not good".

Even if someone cant give, it would still be good if he did give. The word "good" does not mean that good is always possible. We can say that it would be good if everyone was happy, even tho that is impossible. It would be good if no one suffered, even tho that is impossible.
The word "good" does not mean "that which is possible".
In fact, if we look at the definition of good, it says "that which is right, that which is desired". It does not say "that which is possible".
Your entire argument is completely unrelated to the topic of the debate.

The word "good" in this debate has meaning of "should". We have already explained the definition of "should" and how it cannot be possibly used to negate the topic.

The word "good", of course, is there to tell us what we should desire. We should desire that everyone gives food which is needed for life.
Such a standard would solve many problems, including world hunger. Therefore, such standard would be good. Getting closer to this standard would be good, and being closest to it would be best.

Would it be impossible for everyone to give food? Irrelevant to the debate, but it would not be impossible. Those who have no food would get food from those who have more than they need to live. That would result in those who had no food to have food which they can give to themselves and others. So every person would be giving food to the people. Therefore, it is not just good but also possible.

Con
#4
Arg

Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful?
And why would a binding moral law propose something that does something useless in numerous amounts of cases? Keep in mind, that the proposal of the topic does propose something like this should there be an individual with zero or near zero food, due to the presence of the term “every person”.
It would be good if every person gave to the people food which those people need in order to live
“Every person gave to the people food” implies or straightforwardly means that every individual must give food to something, regardless if the offering is directed to people or not. This includes cases where foodless individuals exists(as they theoretically do exist due to their existence being not necessarily logically contradictory, in other words, that personhood is not determined necessarily by the possession of food).

For this reason, the so-called “moral law” that Pro proposed would bring forth futile efforts(such as making food-less people give food). Such efforts are confirmed by Pro to be useless. Now, what is a moral law?
a general rule of right living
especially  such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason
A significant amount of people within the confinements of this society have no, close to no, insufficient or subpar amounts of food.

About those people, they should be net recipients to food, not net contributors. If food is exchanged involving such undernourished people giving food that they would need anyways for their vital quarters, it would be logistically subpar as more resources are being transported than necessary. To ensure the least possible quantity of necessary resources are being moved from points to points(which is the optimal outcome due to such a case approaching zero wasted resources, including fuel(and due to the conservation of mass and energy, transport without energy consumption is impossible, so the issue of wastage is worth considering)), only those with a surplus of food should give food, to those with shortages(including those with no food at all).

For discussing this very case it is that we reach the conclusion, at that at the allocatively efficient equilibrium, “every person giving food to people in need” is simply untrue as those people in need do not need to give their own food(if any) to those in their own subset of people(in need) and should not for the sake of reducing wastage of resources. As a result, futile attempts of access such as those towards from people with insufficient food, are of negative effects due to such wastage.

Of course, Pro could just attempt to dismantle my argument saying that “CON did not prove that conserving energy and resources is morally good”. Then what is? Is objective morality even possible? I will leave this question here, realizing that this debate has 5 rounds.

However, bottom line: Following the moral law should ensure the acts following it being either positively contributional or noncontributional: But never negative. I can bring up another counterexample, where following the proposed “law” ensures in net negative effects.
A person has a medical condition where he needs specialized food to live but those food cannot be properly digested by others. Such a person offers food towards “the people”. A member of “the people” consumes so and gets ill, when he could have been healthy as before if such special cases of people(former) are exemplified from “everyone” that give food.
Be noted of this case, shall we not?

Conclusions
  • Objective morality is not proven with rigid logic to be something that exists surely. Therefore, “it is good” cannot be declared with solid backing, at least with only what Pro has brought up so far.
  • In existing cases, following such a “moral law” results in inefficiency and even net negative effects. Therefore, the exact wording shall not be that of a binding moral law due to the possibility(or even tendency) to be futile or destructive.



Round 3
Pro
#5
Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful?
And why would a binding moral law propose something that does something useless in numerous amounts of cases?
"Does something useless" - My opponent did not explain what is "useless" in this law.
My opponent repeated the argument "Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful?"
Nowhere in the topic does it say "People should be urged". Therefore, I urge Con to read the topic better.
In fact, urging foodless people to give food doesnt result in people giving food. Therefore, "urging foodless people to give food" is clearly not what the topic says.


Keep in mind, that the proposal of the topic does propose something like this should there be an individual with zero or near zero food, due to the presence of the term “every person”.
The topic does not propose urging people who have no food to give food. The topic says that people should give food, not that they should be urged to give food.
As explained before, the word "should" means to do it if you can, since doing something that you cannot do is a contradiction. The description clearly stated that the word "should" is used together with being able to do it.

If you say ""you should do it" is false because "you cannot do it"",
then that means "you should do it =do it + you can do it". Therefore, you refute your own argument, since then "should" means to do it if you can.

If you say that "you should do it" includes "do it + you cannot do it", then you saying "you cannot do it" wouldnt prove the topic wrong.
Saying "it is incorrect to say "do it if you cant do it" because you cant do it" is circular reasoning.


“Every person gave to the people food” implies or straightforwardly means that every individual must give food to something, regardless if the offering is directed to people or not.
These are just blatant lies. 
The topic states:
"It would be good if every person "gave to the people food" which those people need in order to live."

Therefore, the giving of food to the people happens when it is needed by those people so that they could live.
If people dont need any more food to live, then the amount of food they should be given is 0.

Further, the food is not given to "something". It is only given to those people who need that to live.


This includes cases where foodless individuals exists
This was already answered in the previous round, and in description.


(as they theoretically do exist due to their existence being not necessarily logically contradictory, in other words, that personhood is not determined necessarily by the possession of food).
This is just mindless rambling. There is no "theoretically exist". Things either exist either they dont. The topic does not include your fantasies.
Also, I never said "possession of food = personhood".


For this reason, the so-called “moral law” that Pro proposed would bring forth futile efforts(such as making food-less people give food).
This was already answered multiple times.
Nowhere in the topic does it state "make foodless people give food". 

As explained before, the word "should" means to do it if you can. It doesnt mean to do it if you cant, since that is logical impossibility.


Such efforts are confirmed by Pro to be useless.
Such efforts are confirmed by Pro to be irrelevant to the topic.


Now, what is a moral law?
a general rule of right living
especially  such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason
If my opponent tries to use the moral law as an argument because it was mentioned in the description, then my opponent should look again in the description where it says "everyone who can follow it, should follow it".

It doesnt say: "Those who cant follow it should follow it".

Rules mean that which should be followed. We have already seen that the word "should" means "do it if you can".


A significant amount of people within the confinements of this society have no, close to no, insufficient or subpar amounts of food.
My opponent didnt explain what he means by "significant". Significant amount of people are obese, so my opponent's argument is negated.
Also, "close to no food" does not mean no food.


About those people, they should be net recipients to food, not net contributors.
This is where my opponent starts arguing against himself. If we are in a situation where all those people cannot be net recipients to food, which happened in the past, then my opponent's argument is negated because those people cannot be net recipients. Further, if others dont have any food to give them, then they again cannot be net recipients.
So either "should" means "do it if you can" either throw your argument down the drain.


If food is exchanged involving such undernourished people giving food that they would need anyways for their vital quarters
Undernourished people are people who need to be given food to live. Therefore, if they only have little food, they give it to themselves, since that ensures that food is given to the people who need that food to live.


it would be logistically subpar as more resources are being transported than necessary.
When food is being transported to be given to the people who need that food to live, that saves human lives.
Human lives > resources.


To ensure the least possible quantity of necessary resources are being moved from points to points(which is the optimal outcome due to such a case approaching zero wasted resources, including fuel(and due to the conservation of mass and energy, transport without energy consumption is impossible, so the issue of wastage is worth considering))
Human lives > fuel


, only those with a surplus of food should give food, to those with shortages(including those with no food at all).
Those with shortages give food to themselves, since they need it to live. Those with extra food give the extra food to those who need that food to live.
That is what this topic says. Maybe I used too many big words...


For discussing this very case it is that we reach the conclusion, at that at the allocatively efficient equilibrium, “every person giving food to people in need” is simply untrue as those people in need do not need to give their own food(if any) to those in their own subset of people(in need) and should not for the sake of reducing wastage of resources.
As explained before, the topic does not say "Those in need of food should give food to others". Those in need of food to live give food to themselves. They cannot give to the "people", nor the topic says that they should give food to others and not themselves.


As a result, futile attempts of access such as those towards from people with insufficient food, are of negative effects due to such wastage.
People with insufficient amount of food, as explained for about 30 times by now, dont need to give their food to others nor does the topic say that they do.

However, if they do get food from others and have more than sufficient amount of food for themselves, and there is no one left who needs to get food to live, then they dont need to give food to anyone.


Of course, Pro could just attempt to dismantle my argument saying that “CON did not prove that conserving energy and resources is morally good”.
No, there is a simpler way of dismantling it.

Saving lives > Conserving energy and resources.

Plus, the Con is yet to prove that it is true that "Giving starving people food is bad because it wastes resources. Better let them die." is morally superior.


Then what is? Is objective morality even possible? I will leave this question here, realizing that this debate has 5 rounds.
Sorry, you need to present an argument, not a question.


However, bottom line: Following the moral law should ensure the acts following it being either positively contributional or noncontributional: But never negative.
This is an obvious blatant lie. Sometimes negative acts are required to do something good. For example, traveling to Africa carrying food to starving children is negative for you because it wastes your time when you could instead spend your time on the internet losing debates to me. However, even if traveling to Africa is bad for you, it is good for the starving children in Africa since you are bringing them food.


I can bring up another counterexample, where following the proposed “law” ensures in net negative effects.
Lets see you do that.


A person has a medical condition where he needs specialized food to live but those food cannot be properly digested by others.
So others dont need "to get that food" to live.


Such a person offers food towards “the people”.
I think you are a bit confused. The topic doesnt state ""give people food" which they dont need to live".

I like how you presented the example that is completely unrelated to the topic.


A member of “the people” consumes so and gets ill, when he could have been healthy as before if such special cases of people(former) are exemplified from “everyone” that give food.
Be noted of this case, shall we not?
No, we shall not. Food that makes you ill is not "food which you need to get to live.". In fact, getting food that makes you ill would shorten your life, along with making you unable to work, therefore reducing the "giving of food which people need to live".


Objective morality is not proven with rigid logic to be something that exists surely. Therefore, “it is good” cannot be declared with solid backing
Actually, it is objectively true that denying people of "food which they need to live" results in the death of those people.
However, this is not about objective morality.
If you say that starvation is not bad, or that "not starving =/= good", then surely that only means you have a crappy morality that most people would be disgusted by.
However, if you say "not starving =/= good", then I can simply say "not starving =/= not good", so "not starving=good". Therefore, if objective morality doesnt exist, then I am afraid that the topic cannot be disproven at all.

We all know that logic itself is based on unquestionable values. So is morality. So if morality is not objective, then neither is logic itself. That brings us to another awkward position where no objective logic exists that can disprove the topic, and no objective logic exists which could prove that the "topic was not proved correct". How awkward!


I have of course proved that:
1) This moral law would solve world hunger
2) This moral law would result in people who dont have enough food to live would be getting food which they need to live.
3) Should means do it if you can
4) People who have insufficient food will only give food to themselves, which results in no waste whatsoever.

Therefore, it is good.
Con
#6
You know what, just take it. I don't wanna even continue anymore. Not your fault, not my fault, I can accept the outcome.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Okay.
Con
#8
Okay.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Bye.
Con
#10
You're welcome.