2011 November-December LD

As as briet road-map, I will cover my opponent's opening statements, answer my opponent's questions, and finally refute my opponent's arguments themselves. It should also be noted that my opponent has no attacked my case as of yet. This means that any argument offered at a later point in this debate should no be considered as a voting issue, as it will unfairly skew the round to my opponent's favor. I will only have one speech to be able to refute it, whereas he will have two speeches to make further the warrant. The second of which I will not have the oppurtunity to respond to. = Opening Rebuttals = In regards to the Einstein quote, it is incredibly important to point out that Einstein is speaking of the social contract here, not moral obligation. Furthermore it is also apparant to note that this quote frames the direction in which my opponent takes this debate. This debate is not however about social contract theory, nor about utilitarianism: It is one of moral obligation. This will be a crucial voting issue later in the debate. I accept my opponent's definitions, and must point that right and wrong are relative concepts. Thus my opponent's definition of "moral obligation" doesn't serve to make much of a point for him in this debate. = Q&A = Pro- 1. Yes. 2. Yes is the most basic comcept behind social contract theory 3. Yes. Con- 1. What is the link between the Ultilitarian system you establish in your case, and the moral obligation that is the burden of the resolution? 2. Should a person assist another if it benefits the one being assisted, but harms another person? 3. Is there one universal standard of morality? = Argument Rebuttal = Con- My opponent has not directly attacked any aspect of my case as of yet. I even want to go so far as to say that he shouldn't be allowed to make any direct arguments toward my case at this point, as it would be new material to cover in the final speech. However if he doesn't make an argument then this debate will have been pointless, so whatever my opponent should choose to do ought to be acceptable. Contention 1 The responsibility to assist people in need is essiential to the proper funstions of society a. Many Jurisdictions have established a legal requirment to assist persons in need + There is no warrant to suggest that those who follow these law do so by moral obligation instead of simple adherence to social contract law. + Moral Nihlism proves that moral obligation has an incredibly high chance of failing. Furthermore even where one to perscribe to morality, many would sooner abandon moral motivation to benefit oneself. A prime example, would be a person running away from a crash scene by fear of their own safety. + My opponent ultimately argues for social contract theory, not moral obligation. The former is something one agrees to when being born in, and choosing to remain in the social contract. The latter is an inborn sense of right and wrong which is not universally defined. b. Justice + Extend prior argument on social contract theory. My opponent is not arguing for moral obligation, but comforming to the social contract. + My opponent makes a strong case for justice, utilitarianism, and the social contract, but not for proving that this obligation is a moral one. = Closing statements = At this point I feel it is necessary to point out that the argument concerning subjective morality has not been addressed. If it goes unrefuted then the vote absolutely must go to con because of my own argument number four.