Team Debate: Looking good is a moral duty

Post by: bladerunner060Team Captain: bladerunner060Thank you to airmax, for allowing this, and to Team_X, rross and wrichcirw, for doing this! As a proof-of-concept, I think it's been a success!To arguments:Pro's point on bigotry fails; it could be applied equally well to obvious cases of bigotry: "Oh, hating black people isn't bigotry, it's nothing more than the manifestation of subjectivity" is clearly absurd. Pro noted in a title "Moral duty: personal responsibility and caring for others". But the only support for that they offered was that:"...there are...common themes...These moral values are...familiar to us; we will now describe the ways that looking good fits this moral framework."At no point is an actual case made for self-respect being a moral duty. Pro failed to establish why looking good to society necessarily entailed more self-respect, as well. How is it true when what I want differs from what society wants? In that case, how does "conforming" get more self-respect? Pro never explains.Con straw-mans the argument of self-expression, which is rather bothersome. It was not asserted that in no circumstances was looking "good" a moral duty. It was conceded in R2 that there certainly are circumstances where it follows from another duty. It wouldn't be wrong in the context of a wedding for people to treat you differently if you show up in a sloppy T-shirt. It would be wrong in the context of normal interactions, because it's totally unjustifiable unless you assume that looking good is a moral duty. Pro: "Eating a simple, healthy meal does not feed the obesity epidemic..."We claimed that it was inappropriate to judge people and treat them differently (outside of specific contexts) because of their appearance. We claimed that, having a better appearance because people will treat you poorly otherwise, feeds into that inappropriate reaction. If you want to eat a healthy meal, you're doing nothing wrong. Neither are you doing anything wrong if you can and do choose to look good. But it certainly isn't a moral duty to eat a healthy meal because people will insult you and treat you poorly otherwise. Similarly, it's not a moral duty to "look good" because people will treat you worse if you don't. If a family wants to move, surely that's not morally wrong. But neither is it a moral duty. Does it become a moral duty to move if the Klan are putting burning crosses in their yard? We say no. Pro goes on to assert their "uncontested framework".What Pro fails to realize is that their framework WAS contested. It was contested in R2. That things are "consistent with" morality does not equate to establishing "duty". Things which are morally good are not necessarily duties. Regardless fo their sourcingl, Pro continues to fail to provide a rational argument for these duties they assert. "CON provides no sources, no examples..."Well, examples have been provided throughout. But no sources are necessary. What "some have said" about morality is utterly meaningless. What matters is the case Pro brings to the table. They have failed to establish duties they assert. Thinking that giving sources for it somehow makes bare assertion valid when discussing a philosophical point such as this is merely an appeal to authority, and fallacious. In their closing, Con:"...we have provided...evidence..."The last point is irrelevant and was already contested. The other points do not support the duty argument. But certainly, they have posted reliable sources in support of a point that we find unsound regardless of its internal support. Further, regarding speicificty: Doctors have a responsibility to their patients that "normal" people simply do not have. If looking good aids that duty, it's clearly a moral duty, as it follows from a moral duty. It simply, as was already noted, does not extend generally.Pro:"We can control our appearance, and by doing so we are making a conscious decision about how we want to affect people.""We agree with CON that we cannot be held morally responsible for other people's decisions."This is an obvious contradiction in terms of their assignment of moral duty for the first part, yet acknowledgement of a lack of responsibility in the second. This is a major blow to their case, as they concede the same point we make regarding others, even as they try to assert a duty!We are not responsible for others' behavior. Pro has failed to establish why we should be obligated to "look good" beyond claims that it will make us "behave better", which ignores our actual choice on those behaviors. In summation:Pro has well-established their points regarding the effect that "looking good" can have. What they have failed to do is establish their concept of moral duty generally, or their specific use of self-respect. Their laundry list of souces does not change that they have failed to establish that "looking good is a moral duty". They have failed in their BoP, and as such, the resolution is not affirmed.Thanks to everyone reading!