JOKE LD - Moral Obligation and the "Tickle Cream of Death"

FINAL SUMMARY ROUND (http://www.youtube.com...). Basically I’m going to use this to reiterate exactly everything that has been said thus far in this debate and put in a pretty rose-colored spotlight so that you realize why you’re must inner subconscious desire is to vote for Pro and by bringing this to the forefront of your consciousness you may purposefully and deliberately act upon it. Of course, I shall honor and abide by the holy summary rules “thou shalt refrain from introducing new evidence to smite thine opponent” and “thou shalt use no new arguments before theeeee judges”. V/C Clash 1. Knowledge as a teacher My opponent does acknowledge that things can be taught from teachers, but worries about the subject matter, claiming, “The point is, moral philosophies are taught just like anything else.” And that’s true, but the knowledge about morals needs a teacher – tying into situations like the one I illustrated of parents teaching a child morality (no you can’t hit Sally) because teaching rules leads to one developing an understanding of morality. Basically, you need the “knowing-how knowledge” gained through socialization to learn the social rules for right and wrong. 2. Impossibility of Moral Consistency My opponent clarified he is centered on, “how individuals should establish their moral judgments” and “consistent reasoning for motivation over action”. This clarifies one of the central points of clash in this debate – the issue of motivation as my opponent continually attacks the affirmative under the false premise that using the TCD would be fueled by negative motivation. As this is a major point of clash I shall now clarify why the TCD is a positively motivated act. My opponent sees it as a purely retributive act whereby Tricia punishes her friends; however, the point of using TCD is not to punish them as it is not a vengeful act. As I previously showed – it produces laughter and equips one’s “victims” with the opportunity to eat delish whipped cream. The goal is to establish oneself in a positive way that preserves one’s friendships, and the motivation at its core relies on Tricia’s desire to became a member of society, thus she must learn the rules of that society. Her moral obligation is that as someone who longs to fit into society, she must know what society’s moral rules are and learn how to abide by them. 3. Social Subjectivity My opponent claims that “moral consistency is an individual value and recognize that people have choice over social subjectivity”. True people are not “forced” to comply by societal standards for morality, but if they want to fit in then they must decide that as societal belonging is something they value they want to learn and conform to the rules of society to best achieve their personal goals. Con claimed, “Countless philosophies are shared among a variety of cultures, and it’s up to individual choice and effort to adopt such philosophies.” Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems to me like my opponent is claiming that people ought to adopt the moral standards that are most popular between cultures, which would reject “minority” societies. Again, for a person if they desire to fit into a society they must abide by that society’s customs – the choice is up to the individual on if they want to conform, but upon deciding they do (as Tricia did) they line up their own obligations. 4. Moral Obligations This ties in to all of my arguments, particularly in the prior two points of value clash, about how you have an obligation to learn the rules of the society you wish to belong to. Furthermore, my opponent seems to think that this is purely a consequentialist idea where society bases its morals on the outcomes of individual actions; however, as the collectivist vs individualistic society example showed, different societies value different attitudes and base the behaviors they value upon those attitudes. Moving on from the value clash to Con’s case. CI and Context My opponent conceded that moral motivation (an aspect of the context of the action) is important. Thus for him, the burden of his case rests upon the idea that the TCD is a negatively motivated action, if this falls, so does the premise of his case. O1: Return to my earlier point under VC 2 as to how the desire to belong leads to a moral obligation. O2: He acknowledges cultural relativism can be a source for moral obligations, and then claims O3 demonstrates the benefits of using CI. O3: He ties this into the value clash, as I’ve addressed this already as well see this point as flowing with the value clash. C1: His chain of TCD-ing in this point rests only on the unsubstantiated belief that the TCD negatively violates ones free will – return to the tickling and easy-to-eat whipped cream arguments to see why this isn’t so. C2: Here again Con upholds that we need to have retributive justice without “extraneous considerations” – again in the cause/effect chain of life this simply isn’t practical when given how people react. Ultimately, while it might not uphold the “Kantian ideal” – doing something that is practical, reasonably motivated and has positive outcomes is still a good act. The “Kantian ideal” is simply to lofty to achieve realistically. C3: This touches on the consequentialism point I already built up and also that of motivation. Here again, Con claims, “TCD is an immoral act worthy of any budding Sith warrior.” Which, while this claim sounds powerful, doesn’t uphold why it’s immoral. My opponent then claims, “any positive effect requires the victim to see the act in a positive light” – let me just beat this argument down again – TICKLES MAKE THEM GIGGLE AND WHIPPED CREAM GIVES THEM A SUGAR HIGH = YAY. To my own case: C1: Con still protests my use of Newton and other scientific theories to uphold morality. However, looking beyond the big and beautiful ethos of Sir Isaac Newton, which ought to bolster this point to the death star and back, let’s evaluate a key aspect of his life – the apple falling on his head. It is completely upheld that Newton discovered gravity because an apple, realizing the significant lack of education in the field of science, sacrificed itself for the good of mankind and gently attacked Netwon’s head. The apple had an obligation to fall on his head to spread knowing-how knowledge of physics. Boom. Case-in-point. C2: Subpoint a is linked with O1 by my opponent so yay for having already attacked that. Subpoint b is My Little Pony. My opponent claims the story proves Gilda has to compromise her autonomy to get an attitude adjustment – Gilda isn’t forced to do this if she doesn’t want to remain friends with Rainbow Dash. Again, the societal obligation relies on if you want to belong. Since Gilda doesn’t she isn’t obligated to do anything, and she consequentially loses a friend. Your desires dictate your societal obligations. Overall, everything my opponent ever said in this debate falls and all of my own statements shine with glory and knowledge, thus you must see nothing but a firm affirmative ballot. THANKS FOR THE AWESOME DEBATE CONCADE!