Jump to content
Otsuichi

LD-Nov/Dec 2011: Good Samaritan Duty

Recommended Posts

Tourney this weekend was weird. Basically if you actually won with aff you got at least fourth. Almost everyone went 2 in 2 with both wins from neg.

This weekend I voted 3 in-a-row for the Aff and only went Neg on the last round. I wonder if I'm doing it wrong or we just had a very different tournament than you did. (I haven't analyzed my LDers' ballots yet to check for trends from other judges.) It may just be the fact that the first two Negs I saw ran poorly constructed and poorly defended nihilism cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This weekend I voted 3 in-a-row for the Aff and only went Neg on the last round. I wonder if I'm doing it wrong or we just had a very different tournament than you did. (I haven't analyzed my LDers' ballots yet to check for trends from other judges.) It may just be the fact that the first two Negs I saw ran poorly constructed and poorly defended nihilism cases.

idk maybe. There was a team running categorical imperative aff, and allot of negs stating that morals are not needed because of government and law.

What division were you judging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturalism affirmative - morality must be grounded in facts (about human nature), human nature is good, humans want to help others because they're human, so they should. Rejecting your human nature is bad.

 

Also: I hate the "morals not needed because government and law" argument with a passion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk maybe. There was a team running categorical imperative aff, and allot of negs stating that morals are not needed because of government and law.

What division were you judging?

No, I didn't see any Kantian Affs or Negs arguing morals aren't needed. Most of the affs relied either on Locke's social contract with societal welfare-related values or John Rawls' veil of ignorance. Three of the four Negs I saw argued some form of "morals don't exist", two with direct nihilism cases, the third by arguing that morals are inherently subjective, so it's impossible for the Aff to assert a universal obligation for everyone. We don't have separate divisions for novice and varsity LD, everyone's in the same pool. But, if the final winners are any indication (after 5 rounds, powered high-high after round two, someone I saw in each of the last three rounds made the top 6) I saw progressively better debaters as the day went on.

 

That Neg argument seems really weak and easily defeated. Who cares if society or the law imposes an obligation to help others (and, of course, the law does not impose such an obligation in most cases)? That doesn't mean it's not also a moral obligation. Obligations from multiple sources can overlap and require/prohibit the same activity. E.g. take away the obligation from one of the sources (legalize murder) and the other sources still exist (murder would still be immoral and punishable by societal opprobrium).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturalism affirmative - morality must be grounded in facts (about human nature), human nature is good, humans want to help others because they're human, so they should. Rejecting your human nature is bad.

 

Also: I hate the "morals not needed because government and law" argument with a passion.

I have a problem with the leap from humans want to help others to humans should help others, and even if we accept that humans should help others because they want to, "should" suggests an ideal state of affairs, not an obligation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost a lot of aff rounds, but I've only lost one neg round, and that was because the judge was terrible. My opponent conceded that helping others actually hurts your ability self actualize, which was his value. I also had two conceded arguments that proved my NC true. Those were ignored.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys think that an aff with a ton of reason why skep/relativism flows aff followed by a burden saying all I have to do is prove relativism true would be plausible? Obviously the rest of the case would just be relativism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys think that an aff with a ton of reason why skep/relativism flows aff followed by a burden saying all I have to do is prove relativism true would be plausible? Obviously the rest of the case would just be relativism.

I really don't see how skep or relativism would flow aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about drafting another neg, just for kicks. What seems to be the argument of choice for most negs?

 

Also, I agree with Panopticon in that I can't see how relativism or skepticism would flow aff at all, so that, to me, automatically makes the case implausible because i can't think of any ordinary way you would possibly justify that, so you'd have to turn to some sort of alternative argument or outlying definition, and stuff like that is always tenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skepticism can't flow aff [WRONG, see below], but relativism can if most people believe they have an obligation to assist people in need.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skepticism can't flow aff, but relativism can if most people believe they have an obligation to assist people in need.

I won't go so far as to disagree, but that's certainly some dangerous ground to be playing on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

relativism flows aff because it assumes all moral statements are true. It is the same as if no one knew that the sky was blue, and i call it red and you call it green we would both be right because there would not be any universal to compare it to. At the very least it means no one can prove us wrong. That is at the center of relativism, because within it you cannot call another moral code wrong, which would be the baseline neg burden. I woud probably make arguments about how skep leads to relativism meaning relativism affirms is enough.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't go so far as to disagree, but that's certainly some dangerous ground to be playing on.

What does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that mean?

Strategically dangerous although probably argumentatively sound.

 

I woud probably make arguments about how skep leads to relativism meaning relativism affirms is enough.

Good argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you put it like that, it is actually a coherent, fairly sound argument. However, while it would take people off guard, I think people will either run some sort of contractualism NC, which has nothing to do with their relativism/skep case, or I would personally pull out maybe a relativism NC and then run skep super hard as an offcase, and see if I can do a better job than you at skep. However, if this is on natural circuit, people would be caught off guard and just run 6 theory shells against you, hoping to spread you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people will either run some sort of contractualism NC, which has nothing to do with their relativism/skep case, or I would personally pull out maybe a relativism NC and then run skep super hard as an offcase, and see if I can do a better job than you at skep.

But couldn't I just turn a relativism NC, and in regards to moral skep, it doesn't apply to relativism because relativism admits that there is no absolute moral truth. Unless you are running wittgenstein, in which case I would probably just default to fictionalism. Also, what are some god arguments against contractualism, as that seems like a very plausible and likely response to my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like since skep is such a common neg argument, regardless of its abusiveness when run as an offcase, a lot of people will have skep cases they've developed over the years, meaning they will have some really strong arguments, so you need to add a bunch of extremely solid analytics as to why relativism and skep flow aff. For contractualism, I haven't thought of too many great arguments. I guess you could say that I never actually signed a contract to my society, but that isn't too great. However, moral relativism (depending on your argument and analytics) should be fairly strong against a contractualism case. This would be an interesting round, especially since personally I use skep to derive contractualism.

 

One last note, maybe say societies lead to structural oppression in most cases, or something to that extent, and then link back in to relativism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like since skep is such a common neg argument, regardless of its abusiveness when run as an offcase, a lot of people will have skep cases they've developed over the years, meaning they will have some really strong arguments

 

On skep, are you talking about epistemological skep, or moral skep, because moral skep does not apply to relativism.

 

One last note, maybe say societies lead to structural oppression in most cases, or something to that extent, and then link back in to relativism.

 

 

What do you mean? WHy would that help my AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...