LD debate topic for Nov/Dec

Thank you. Originally I was going to post my case and rebuttal in this argument seeing as according to National Forensics League allows such an action as long as the contender has a chance to argue my points, I do respect the cons choice, as it was my responsibility to get it done and I failed. So instead I will simply argue the cons points and state reasons why the pro is correct in the resolution. First I will discuss their definitions: the fact is that the con defined moral and obligation separately, even though it is a phrase which forces it to adopt the new meaning of : something someone should do, but is not legally bound to do. Now looking at their definition of need I would like to refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs in which the basic level is Physical need such as food, shelter, and water, which goes better with the definition of need- something essential or very important to life rather then just desirable. Attack on Observation 1) the con states that it is not possible to have a moral obligation across all cultures because of the diversity though if you look at the research done by Peter Singer, "Ethics," Encyclopedia Britannica. It is commonly believed that there are no ethical universals, and that there is so much variation from one culture to another that no single principle or judgment is generally accepted, that is not the case. Of course, there are immense differences in the way in which the broad principles are applied. Concern for kin and reciprocity to those who treat us well are considered good in virtually all-human societies. Also, all societies have, for obvious reasons, some constraints on killing and wounding other members of the group. This says that no matter where you are you will always find such values in the culture as, respect your elders, help an injured man, and respect your surroundings. Value and Value criterion attack the con states that the value of justice is upheld by the criterion of the protection of the inalienable rights. The fact is that assisting someone in need do not interfere with life, liberty, and property because assisting does not ask you to give up you property, and as I stated before the idea of the resolution is saying this is something we should do but are not bound to do therefore this does not take away from our liberty. Also according to the research done by David Schmidtz, "Reasons for Altruism," Social Philosophy and Policy. Our ultimate interest is in having something to live for, being able to devote ourselves to the satisfaction of preferences we judge worthy of satisfaction. Not having other-regarding preferences is costly, for it drastically limits what one has to live for. A person may have no concern for others, but her lack of concern is nothing to envy. Concern for ourselves gives us something to live for. Concern for others as well as ourselves gives us more. This is saying that a selfish life can only provide so much happiness but a selfless life offers so much more, and therefore developing a better quality of life for both the individual giving and the individual receiving as both now have more then what they had before and therefore have more to appreciate. And therefore life is boosted by helping others meaning that the cons value and value criterion or irrelevant. Contention 1) attack as I stated prior in the case, the resolution is stating that we should help others but or not bound to do so and therefore that completely contradicts their 1st contention leading it to be dropped. Contention 2) attack the cons contention to is basically saying that we shouldn't put ourselves at risk and I agree but the fact is that the resolution says assist not assist personally and their for calling a professional to deal with it would still be assisting that person making their 2nd contention meaningless and thus dropped. Contention 3) attack two things come to mind when I read this; first is that this is a real life example and doesn't attack the philosophical issue in today's debate as is Lincoln Douglass style. second is the fact that the man who paid his workers was doing it for the publicity and the man who fired all the other men did it to restart the company knowing it would lead to more jobs therefore he was assisting society as a whole even if it didn't seem so at first. Conclusion I believe I have completely nullified the cons contention and showed that his value and value criterion is not valid enough for this debate. All while showing why a moral obligation to assist people in need is just and positive to society and self improvement. I now allow the con to take over the debate and wish them the best of luck. References Black Laws Dictionary David Schmidtz, "reasons for altruism," Social Philosophy and Policy Peter Singer, "Ethics," Encyclopedia Britannica