Nov PF Topic

First I would like to point out the fact that my opponent's case was done to specifically counter mine. Now let's look at his case. Contention 1: The affirmation obsession with life and preventing death is a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world. My view is not a heteronormative stance on the way that we see the world. Green 2015: Consider an analogy. Any swimmer able to help has a moral duty to save a drowning child. He may not look around the pool to see whether the rescue would be less of a hassle to someone else, and he may not let one child drown on the ground that he already saved one yesterday. If he can effectively help, he must. Coordination among refugee-accepting countries is often required"but by effectiveness, not fairness. What matters is getting refugees settled, not how the costs of doing so are distributed (except, of course, where that is instrumental to getting more people resettled quickly). As seen here, coordination among refugee-accepting countries is often required-but by effectiveness, not fairness. We are setting a just action by saving life, but not in a heteronormative stance like my opponent is saying. Also, what is he/she protecting? Only the interests. We are seeking the common good of people, which is to live. Shibbaz 2007: Aside from the practical reasons for refugee camps as outlined above, one can take one step back and examine the underlying reason for refugee camps as such. Refugee camps, to recap, are intended to provide protection for peoples who fear persecution, most notably in the cases of civil war or genocide in their home country. The question now remains, however, is why the international community, the UNHCR and other NGOs in this case, seek to help people who have had to face extreme hardship in their home country. At the core, refugee camps are a form of humanitarian action, that is, a practical realization of an ideology whereby people perform humane treatment and provide assistance to others. Humanitarianism is based on the idea that all humans have equal value and accordingly, they should be treated with respect and dignity. Refugee camps in this light, are then based on the concept of humanitarianism which is, in turn, based on providing assistance to those who need it. As seen, as the author claims, "to live a life without human rights is to live a life unworthy of a human being." As seen, his first contention is now being disproven. My view on heteronormativity is not true. I am saying that all life is useful, and for the common good, we should save as many people as we can. My point on life is that it is a valuable right that humans need, so therefore we should save as many lives as we can. Contention 2. Heteronormative stances like these cause violence by excluding the non-normalised queer and making him "Other". This is a very interesting point. However, this is not true. Slim 2012: Kant"s idea of duty determines that something is always good to do regardless of any conditions. These imperatives are supreme moral principles that make for absolute duties and obvious "oughts." Their goodness is not dependent on their outcomes. This is moral thinking governed by a categorical "must," not a hypothetical "if." Operating on categorical imperatives means that I do something because it is always good, not because I think that if I do it then good may come. Kant sums up the difference: "Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represent the practical necessity of a possible action as a means for attaining something else that one wants (or may possibly want). The categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end." From this brief encounter with Kant, it is fairly obvious how international NGOs who have signed up to these three documents understand humanitarian values today. They claim clearly that being humanitarian is a categorical imperative. It is an end in itself. It is an unconditioned "ought" and must never be subject to conditions. There are no "ifs" in the humanitarian imperative. From this moral reasoning flows the idea of humanitarian duties that always exist regardless of circumstances or of aspirations around other competing moral ends. In other words, a Kantian humanitarian would have a lot of problems with the suspension of a humanitarian program as a hypothetical means to leverage a good political outcome on democracy or women"s rights. Equally, in the context of the new "war on terrorism," an imperative humanitarian would also find grave moral flaws in any strategy that stopped or compromised humanitarian action on the basis of some wider hypothetical arguments about counterterrorism benefits. This shows that Slim is pointing out that human rights are a supreme value. Life is a very important value. His argument says that mine of saving human lives is heteronormative at its core. Judges, he is basically stating that saving lives are heteronormative. I never implied that. I implied that human rights are the most important value. So with these reasons and many more, you should vote for the Pro side today. Thank you. `TheResistance Sources used: 1.http://www.humanitarianleaders.org... 2.http://www.etd.ceu.hu... 3.http://ljmgreen.com...