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

Since I started refuting the opponent's case in my constructive, I'm only going to focus on defense and limited SW references in this last round. In my final attack run, I will be focusing on the summary points of my case, and final voting issues. Value ClashI will focus on the four central arguments in this clash: Knowledge as a teacher - The Aff claims that the knowledge of morals needs a teacher, but once again she fails to provide any line of reasoning that demonstrates how society A. teaches absolute consequential or rule-based morals, and B. society is the only source of knowledge on morals. My point remains: society as a teacher won't necessarily teach a consistent moral foundation that's necessary to build any moral obligation on. Impossibility of moral consistency - The Aff accepted my point on the consistency of motivations over action, and moved on to demonstrate how Tricia's use of TCD is a positively motivated act through the supposed positive effects of TCD, and Tricia's motivation to fit into society. First, it's important to recall that my framework views Tricia's use of TCD as a retributive act based on emotion. Such an act would have to be "free of extraneous considerations" which in any positive or negative light, it isn't. Second, the Aff is resting this claim on an unqualified assumption on Tricia's motives. Is Tricia really going to react to a Royal Shampooing by seeing an opportunity to "social to society's norms", or act on the desire of revenge and/or justice? Even the Aff has been contradictory on Tricia's motivations: in her summary, Tricia is motivated via socialization. Yet, in her critique of my C1 in the previous round, Tricia is "doing this to restore her own free will after having been violated by the royal shampoo – context." Her motivation is uncertain, but with the CI we have certainty. Any motivation to use another human being as a means to an end is immoral. Regardless of whether Tricia is seeking to do good or evil, her motivated act to use her friends to accomplish her goals establishes the immorality of this case. You can't use TCD without the motivation to use others for your own benefits. Escaping Social Subjectivity - My opponent is firmly upholding the ideal of cultural relativism by arguing that if people want to belong to a society, they must adopt the society's norms. This is the very pitfall of basing our morals on society's standards. Look to Emperor Palpatine's society where human supremacy was the standard: if people simply based their morals on "fitting in", the Rebellion would never have been born. Or look to slavery abolition and the civil rights movementsif everyone based their notions of right and wrong on what society deemed, we would be robbed of the moral and social milestones we've reached by outlawing slavery and ending legal segregation. My point about philosophies existing among many cultural wasn't claiming that we must adopt the "in-between philosophies". It's merely demonstrating that philosophies can exist despite different societal influences. Moral obligations and consequences - Cross apply my critiques to the Aff's argument regarding the obligation to socialize. Second, return to my defense of my O1: an obligation to socialize to norms isn't necessarily a moral obligation to use TCD. The Aff has argued for the morality of TCD due to positive effects, therefore my critique of consequential morals remains unrefuted. Just because some societies have different values from others doesn't demonstrate why Tricia has a moral obligation to use TCD in order to fulfill her societal obligation to socialize to society's norms. Supposed positive benefits (which I've critiqued) and a societal obligation to socialize (which I've also critiqued) don't automatically mandate a moral obligation to commit TCD. Criterion Clash: My opponent argues that I concede the point about moral motivation being important. This isn't necessarily a concession as it is a core component of my whole case (and the CI in particular). Look to my C1 & C2 to see why the use of TCD is immoral because of the intention to use someone else as a means to an end. There is no way this act can escape this motivation: any goal the TCD is meant to achieve must be done at the sake of another's autonomy. This demonstrates how any use of TCD is an immoral act: the user of TCD must willingly wish to accomplish their goals at the expense of someone else. O1: Cross apply my defense against the Aff's attacks on moral consistency argument. The Aff's argument that "TCD is a positively motivated act" only seeks to establish the morality of the action (which my C1 counters), but doesn't establish a moral obligation. Second, look at my previous defense of my O1: societal obligations to socialize to societal norms aren't the same as moral obligations. O2: My argument has never been that cultural relativism can't be a source of moral obligation. The important component to this however, is A. all my arguments that demonstrate my criterion of CI is the best source for moral obligation in this round, and B. the Aff is only establishing a societal obligation to socialize through her CI; using TCD to "fit in" doesn't establish a moral obligation to use it.O3: Since I have negated the Aff's original arguments she drew from the V/C clash to attack my observation, see that this observation still stands. My argument about the normative aspects of CI have been accepted by the Aff, and in fact are being utilized in her attempt to establish TCD as a "positively motivated" act. C1: I offer no "unsubstantiated belief that TCD negatively violates free will". Suggesting so ignores the actual premise of this contention. TCD is immoral because it actively violates free will. Apply my arguments in the rebuttal round and see that this act requires the recognition to violate free will. Whether this violation produces positive or negative outcomes is beside the point. This contention provides the moral reasoning for the immorality of TCD, and is preferable to the assumed positive consequences that the Aff attempt's to justify TCD with.C2: Once again, my original defense of this contention demonstrates that not all cause/effect relationships require the emotional component my opponent is claiming we can't escape from. This "ideal" is something many legal systems are founded on (i.e. justice is blind). Second, the Aff's own argument once again confuses Tricia's motivations: is she acting out of emotional revenge or a sense of obligation to "fit in"? Finally, return to my critiques on her justification of TCD to see why Tricia's use isn't practical, reasonably motivated with positive outcomes. C3: Apply my critique of TCD's morality once again. TCD as an immoral act is established in my C1, and my critiques of the Aff's justification of TCD are in the V/C clash & my attacks of her case. Furthermore, my opponent seems to accept my "positive effect requires positive outlook" point I made in relation to the My Little Pony Parable. Finally, much like Tricia's motivations, the Aff is merely assuming that the prank will be positively accepted by her friends. Whether it is or isn't, the full weight of this contention stands: the use of TCD perpetuates a negative situation of immorality that people must participate in inorder to fulfill a moral obligation whenever they're pranked. Finally, I shall conclude with the voting issues of the debate: Moral consistency - Regarding the value clash, see that A. I've upheld the concept of moral consistency, and B. have shown why it's preferable to the Aff's value of knowledge in this debate. An individual has the ability to pursue a morally consistent life. More importantly, moral consistency is necessary to achieve any moral understanding free from the types of contradictions societal influence promote. The aff's value of knowledge only pertains to societal knowledge, which I have demonstrated neither creates a moral obligation to use TCD, nor concerns itself with the proper moral framework needed to establish and critique a moral obligation. Categorical Imperative - Once again, weigh my criterion of CI over the Aff's "socialization of proper behavior". Throughout this debate, I've shown how the Aff's criterion doesn't establish a moral obligation, nor the moral justification of using TCD. Ultimately, what is right in society isn't necessarily moral. The CI provides the ethical reasoning and moral framework for A. an individual to pursue a morally consistent life, and B. us to judge what motivated acts are moral/immoral. TCD immorality - From the original premise, and my defense of my C1, see that the use of TCD is immoral. Using anyone as a means to an end violates free will, and resting a moral obligation on this only leads to a negative spiral of immorality. Furthermore, my opponent's justification of TCD as having positive outcomes still remains problematic. My opponent simply dismissed my critique of consequential-based justification made in the value clash: moral obligations based on the justification from consequences can obligate negative acts. If someone doesn't know whether an outcome will be positive or not, a moral obligation might mandate an immoral act. Therefore, we can't obligate the use of TCD when the positive outcomes that justify it use *might* happen. Lack of moral obligation - Finally, on my side I have demonstrated how we can't create a moral obligation to use TCD without perpetuating immoral motivations that violate free will. The Aff has argued for an obligation to socialize to society's norms, which my critiques demonstrate that this doesn't equal a moral obligation. Ultimately, my V/C framework is the only framework that offers a look at the moral obligation addressed in the resolution, and concludes that no TCD-based moral obligation can exist to promote morality. From these issues, I urge a vote for Neg. Thank's the Jopo for a great and crazy debate. May the Force be with her and the rest of DDO.