Resolved: The United States Federal Government should end its public funding for Planned Parenthood.

Well in a rush here, but not really much I can say since this round is only for revuttals, as per the rules. Perfect duties "P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties" Without going any further, people should just dismiss Lannan's first contention. He never supports his first premise. If the first premise fails, than the entire syllogism fails. Beyond that he just completely misunderstands what Kant is saying with his arguments. You will not find Kant saying anywhere that the government or even people (and the argument is meant for personal ethics, not group ethics), should only perform perfect duties. In fact Kant actually states people should perform both perfect and imperfect duties. Like my opponent says, you should always perform perfect duties. We don't have a disagreement there, but you should sometimes perform imperfect duties. Kant explains that you should sometimes perform imperfect duties. My opponent actually gives the beginning of the quote that confirms this, but I'll give the rest. "imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form "One must sometimes and to some extent `6; in C". So, for instance, Kant held that the maxim of committing suicide to avoid future unhappiness did not pass the third step, the contradiction in conception test. Hence, one is forbidden to act on the maxim of committing suicide to avoid unhappiness. By contrast, the maxim of refusing to assist others in pursuit of their projects passes the contradiction in conception test, but fails the contradiction in the will test. Hence, we have a duty to sometimes and to some extent aid and assist others." http://plato.stanford.edu... If you want to apply Kant's philosophy to government, than you have to say that the government should sometimes perform imperfect duties. The only duties that should never be performed are ones that would not be considered imperfect or perfect duties. My argument is that funding of planned parenthood is an imperfect duty, but one we should continue to perform. we should be consistent with Kant's philosophy and keep funding planned parenthood. My opponent seems to concede that funding of planned parenthood is an imperfect duty, but what he fails to realize Is that imperfect duties are things that should be done sometimes. This is one of those cases where we should perform it, as I have argued and given evidence for. Moral Hazard Sometimes I'm just bewildered by Lannan's arguments. They don't even seem applicable to the debate, and I'm not sure how to respond. The whole moral hazard argument seems to presuppose that Planned Parenthood is a for profit institution. Let me just inform him right now, that it's in fact a non profit. Planned Parenthood survives through donations and government subsidies. The reason non profits don't apply to the argument my opponent made is not only because Hayek intended the argument for organizations that could be seen as "too big to fail", such as banks, the railroad or the auto industry. Charitable or non profit organizations that would not find any market incentive to exist don't apply. If you provide charity to organizations that feed the homeless, you don't harm the homeless feeding industry. There is no profit in feeding the homeless, so the principle of creative destruction doesn't apply. There simply isn't a profit for where the federal funding goes to planned parenthood. There isn't a market for giving away free birth control, educating teenagers on safe sex and STDs, providing free or close to it mammograms or many of the other services planned parenthood provides to people in poverty. Was there some sort of profit incentive to do these things, me and my opponent would be in agreement on this topic. The Other Side of Hyde This is another argument that is off topic by my opponent. The Hyde amendment in fact states that abortions are to receive no federal funding. However planned parenthood spends none of the federal funding it receives on abortion, but on many of the other services it provides for needy women. Services which in fact help prevent abortion as I've explained in the previous round.