LD Debates

I will refute my opponent's case before defending my own "He claims that I fully intend to kill. That is just false. I intend to save lives. I am aware that that means killing, but my intention is not to kill, killing is one of my actions. Note, my maxim does not mention killing, it only mentions saving lives. This is most certainly a good intention." --> There are two ways of doing things. You either do something intentionally (on purpose), or unintentionally (by accident). I understand that you ALSO intend to save lives but you intend to do so by killing first. In the affirmative, you do not kill by accident you kill intentionally, so you're intention of killing is not morally permissible, under any circumstances, despite its consequences and other intentions. Therefore, my opponent's claim that killing is just an action is false because it is an action done intentionally, also as I explained through definition of intention (course of action) you have to kill FIRST kill in order to save so this course of action that is based on an immoral action (killing) is wrong and consequently rejected as immoral by Kantianism. My opponent, after the, claims that my argument does not refute his argument and to the contrary strengthens it, because I say that saving lives is an intention. He hides (because I am sure he noticed it) that in the conclusion of my argument that he attacks with the claim in question, I state that you both intend to save AND kill ("Intention: kill, save lives"), I also explain (in Round 2 and in the previous argument) that you also intend to kill, an action that is not morally permissible according to Kantianism, because the intention of killing is wrong. Next, he repeats his Round 2 argument: that saving is the action and not the consequence, but he fails to prove this and does not refute my grammar interpretation that proves the exact opposite to his claim. Debate rules dictate that if an argument is not countered it must be extended and since my opponent will not get a second chance to refute it, it is accepted as correct. This, alone along with his lack of proof for his claim is what should cause him to drop it. "The maxim "If I save lives, I am doing the right thing" can. So if we simply act under the latter maxim, we are achieving the resolution, but we are still acting upon a morally sound maxim. This is what deontology calls for. Only that we act on a moral maxim, and the affirmative does this. The affirmative upholds the criterion of both Negative and my criterion." My opponent's proposed maxim was a big blunder for 2 reasons: --> First of all he makes the same mistake in believing that saving is the action, in my argument about the grammatical interpretation of the resolution that was not refuted and therefore is accepted as correct, I prove him wrong (saving is a consequence). According to Kant: " Morality and other rational requirements are demands that apply to the maxims that motivate our actions" Notice that he states that maxims should motivate our ACTIONS and not our intentions. Therefore creating a maxim that motivates an INTENTION (which as I have proved is the case here) is wrong according to Kant (the man who first had the idea of maxims). --> As my opponent explained in Round 1, Kant said that ‘a maxim has to be universalised in order to be accepted, or else it must be rejected as immoral'. In the case of the affirmative saving the lives of many is done by killing an innocent. As I already explained in Round 1, killing an innocent can not be universalised because "a.) It is generally immoral and b.)No one would want to be killed (Do unto others as you will have them do unto you)." In conclusion, even if saving was the action (I already proved that it is not) my opponent's maxim would still be rejected as morally impermissible. -->Taking the above into consideration, my opponent must now drop his points based on the maxim he proposes and leave his value criterion undefended that therefore will also dropped and since it is to late to provide a new one at this point of the debate, a negative ballot is mandatory. "Kant judges an action on its maxim. There are a number of possible maxims behind the resolution, and my maxim, "If I save lives I am doing the right thing" is a morally sound maxim under deontology." --> My opponent's maxim has above been proven wrong because a.) It motivates an intention rather than action b.) It cannot be universalised, therefore it is rejected based on Kant's words (a maxim must motivate an action only and a maxim must be universalised in order to be accepted) "He attacks my contention, by again saying that I intend to kill. My maxim is my intention for the purposes of deontology, and my maxim does not mention killing. I do not, for the purposes of deontology, intend to kill." --> The maxim may not mention the action of killing, because it is an intention, but am intention is achieved through an action and that action is killing that is not morally permissible according to Deontology that claims that an action should be judged without taking it's consequences into consideration and killing is morally impermissible in spite of saving people. Moving on to my own case "We have the same value, and our criterions are basically the same, as Kantianism is deontology. So basically, since the affirmative can fit under both frameworks, the affirmative clearly wins." --> My opponent provides this argument on order to persuade you to vote for him. His argument is false. This is because: A.) Kantianism, could not be used to defend his own case, because in the affirmative you fully intend to kill an innocent, which is considered an immoral action that is therefore rejected (along with his proposed maxim) by Kantianism and Immanuel Kant's very words as I explained above B.)Deontology also rejects both the affirmative of the resolution (my opponent's case) and the maxim he provides. This is because as I explained in Round 1 "Deontology supports that we should focus on the rightness or wrongness of the action, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences to determine if an action is morally permissible or not." I have proven that the action is killing an innocent and the consequence is saving lives and this proof, went by unquestioned and unrefuted and since it is to late to late to refute it (this is the last round) it is therefore accepted as true. This means that Deontology rejects the affirmative. Judging from the above, my opponent's claim that his case fits both frames is completely false, since the exact opposite is true and his case is therefore Morally Impermissible, (although it may be called Heroic and it may have the best of results, this does not change the fact that it is morally impermissible). Besides these 2 sentences, my opponent fails to refute many of the arguments I made in the defence of my case that are consequently accepted and extended. Finally, my opponent failed to refute many of my points in his attack on my own case and the grammatical interpretation in the defence of his own (while I correctly refuted each and every one of his arguments), his Value Criterion must be dropped because he supported it with a maxim that contradicts it (Kant's very words) and is rejected by both Kantianism and Deontology and since he can not provide a new one at this stage, his value is not upheld by a Criterion resulting in him not doing nearly enough to affirm the resolution. While I correctly refuted all of his points and proved that both Kantianism and Deontology reject the affirmative and accept the negative (my own case) and therefore I have done enough to negate. Consequently a negative ballot is (based on justice) the correct choice. Thank you very much.