Jump to content
Otsuichi

LD-Nov/Dec 2011: Good Samaritan Duty

Recommended Posts

First, in McGough's Individual K/PIC he says that the sheer fact "individual" is abstracting humans is enough to negate because it solely dejustifies the resolution, so even if Person isn't better, the aff's advocacy is dejustifying the resolution

You know, I put this in my case, but I wouldn't vote for a neg who ran this who lost that "persons" was a better term. I mean, the negative chose his own advocacy and chose precisely how to word it. If they both abstract people, I'm going to vote for the side that had no choice and failed to meet a burden imposed upon it by the negative (aff) than the side that had complete choice and failed to meet its own burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I put this in my case, but I wouldn't vote for a neg who ran this who lost that "persons" was a better term. I mean, the negative chose his own advocacy and chose precisely how to word it. If they both abstract people, I'm going to vote for the side that had no choice and failed to meet a burden imposed upon it by the negative (aff) than the side that had complete choice and failed to meet its own burden.

Different way of looking at it: the negative at least tried to avoid the term, the affirmative didn't.

 

Saying that the affirmative had no choice is irrelevant. The affirmative has no choice about linking to almost every NC because that is what clash is.

Saying that they wished they didn't link but the resolution forced them to is not an adequate response to any type of argument, including this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had any arguments at the alternative level. Unfortunately, the most common argument against it is that it is irrelevant as it isn't talking about assisting people in need. Saying that a kritik isn't talking about the resolution without attacking the link itself, just saying that we can't talk about the presumptions that the resolution makes is one of the more asinine arguments I've ever heard. Ugh, people frustrate me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you say to a n ethical deadlock neg? That is, the neg says you can't have infinite obligations. I affirmed against something like that at finals on Saturday. Well, it was really more like "doing the impossible is, well, impossible and the resolution is impossible therefore negate because you can't have an obligation to do the impossible." My argument was basically "...why not?" so I'd like something more concrete, if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you say to a n ethical deadlock neg? That is, the neg says you can't have infinite obligations. I affirmed against something like that at finals on Saturday. Well, it was really more like "doing the impossible is, well, impossible and the resolution is impossible therefore negate because you can't have an obligation to do the impossible." My argument was basically "...why not?" so I'd like something more concrete, if possible.

 

There is a card I posted by derrida that says that impossibility is good. Also, you could make the argument that impossibility is necessary because morality is something we have to strive for, not something that can be absolutely achieved. You could also make the argument that if everyone is helping everyone is being helped, so there is no impossible obligation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you say to a n ethical deadlock neg? That is, the neg says you can't have infinite obligations. I affirmed against something like that at finals on Saturday. Well, it was really more like "doing the impossible is, well, impossible and the resolution is impossible therefore negate because you can't have an obligation to do the impossible." My argument was basically "...why not?" so I'd like something more concrete, if possible.

Can is a prerequisite to Ought because morality's purpose is to serve as a guide for decision making.

[insert pragmatism good arguments here]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Derrida card somewhere that talks about how this impossibility is essential to ethics. Most people cut the Derrida other Other card, but pretty much right after that he agrees with Levinas. Try looking around the Gift of Death, that's where the other Other card is from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Derrida card somewhere that talks about how this impossibility is essential to ethics. Most people cut the Derrida other Other card, but pretty much right after that he agrees with Levinas. Try looking around the Gift of Death, that's where the other Other card is from.

 

It was posted earlier in the thread by me

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...