Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

"Never" I never addressed this before because it was not too important and I needed to save space. However, now Pro seems to be changing the definition. Most of his initial reasoning is fine until he comes to the dumbfounding conclusion, "under the agreed-on definition of the resolution, I only need to show that in most cases a J.S. can't initiate war." It’s a massive stretch to reach “most often” from “never”. Pro has to show just societies should never (as a rule) initiate war, not that they should more often not do so. Furthermore, since Pro & I both agree that the issue is theoretical, all that’s necessary is to think up one single instance of justified initiation of war & form a conception of a theoretical world where wars similar to the justified one happen all the time. Framework The statement, “if killing is wrong, it is almost always wrong” is false because it makes no sense at all to state something is wrong & then provide cases where it is right. If killing is wrong, then it is always wrong. Initially, Pro stated that the person in his scenario should commit the less worse act, meaning he had an obligation to do so, & that it is the only moral course. He drops that language now & refuses to acknowledge that his theory amounts to the erroneous claim that persons can have a moral obligation to do something that is immoral. If X & Y are literally the only options, then it cannot in any conceivable way be immoral to do the one that is overall best. Pro would have us believe he would be acting immorally either way but this is completely indefensible. This means that under his scenario where someone is forced into the option of either killing one to save five or killing one with no one else saved, the person is not under any obligation to kill the one to save the five, a clearly much better option. It is not “broad general rules” that I am denying, rather broad general rules with obvious exceptions. In fact the absolute standard I presented could be formed as a broad general rule. Pro continually advocates for rules that are completely useless because they could be torn down & replaced with more specific ones. The right to life & right to vote both contain exceptions. If Pro is arguing that such rights should be universally stated, he has not shown why. The Absolute Standard Pro asks how we can weigh one moral value against the next. First, it wasn’t the purpose of this standard to cover questions such as those. It's only one broad principle out of a more complicated system. Second, unless Pro's theory does not value fairness & freedom, I'm not sure how this is unique to my standard. That being said, it's not significant at all either way. Fairness & freedom are very broad terms. In some cases such as a criminal’s sentence VS. having to wear seat belts, one is more important than the other but in other cases it could be different. C.1 Deontology I'm not at all ignoring definitions. Pro is changing what I already agreed upon to make it even more lenient on himself. When Pro states, as he did last round, "I submit that he has no shown evidence that this is the case in a majority of instances of deliberately initiated war", & this round, "under the agreed-on definition of the resolution, I only need to show that in most cases a J.S. can't initate war." I am of course going to call him out on it as he is then assuming "never" means more often than not rather than as a rule. When the only options are to kill fewer innocents than more innocents, or to kill innocents or take a course of action with worse results, it is morally permissible to kill innocents. War sometimes results in the protection of innocent lives, but Pro holds to the absolutist view to still forgo action even if it better protects innocent lives. Furthermore, Pro has clearly accepted the legitimacy of participating in wars that have already started despite the fact that this leads to the killing of innocents no less than actually initiating the war. Lastly, if war is already on the horizon, it is futile to try to protect innocents by not initiating war. C.2 Utility If the Jews started a war against Germany, then they would be initiating war & thus acting against the resolution, so Pro is proving my point If the Jews did not start a civil war, then other nations could start the war. Pro shows no reason why not & for some reason only assumes that the Jews started a civil war first. There’s no firm standard to Pro’s reasoning. Why is it OK for other societies to come to the Jews’ aid, only after they’ve started a war? Why not before the war has started? Why not when the Jews are on the verge of starting a civil war? Why not when the Jews had suffered defeat in their already crushed civil war? Why not when the Jews did not initiate any war at all? Why is it justified only after the Jews have started a civil war? I find it highly unlikely that Pro could satisfy these concerns. In the vast majority of times Political pressure & evacuations would not be near enough to put the genocide to a stop. I said the lines between offensive & defensive are often blurred but can sometimes be delineated. Since Pro’s only objection is a straw-man fallacy, we can assume that the difference between offensive and defensive weaponry is often blurry. It still remains unclear why Pro can get away with mentioning only one country that reverts mainly to defensive weapons. Since many weapons take on a both offensive and defensive nature, nations will not only build up an offensive weaponry even if for defensive purposes, they will probably prefer weapons that may be used for both offense and defense as this gives them more options. Furthermore, that Japan’s weaponry is mainly defensive, does not mean they cannot initiate war, and if Japan wanted to participate in war, they could easily alter the nature of their weaponry anyway. Since the resolution is only against initiation of war and not participation, just societies may still build up offensive weapons in anticipation of joining or being caught up in wars. Weapons only help deter. The Cold War in multiple instances came “perilously close to starting World War III” [1]. The United States offensive weaponry was crucial to that not becoming so, but it was not in any way a guarantee. Additionally, potential initiation of war is another method of deterrence. S-B Pro earlier said the UN is irrelevant since the resolution is philosophical, yet still uses current laws to argue against me. The simple fact that the laws are in place does not prove anything as it does not prove they should be in place nor include times when they are not. I did not state that war is always the best answer to immoral drives for power; rather that this is sometimes the best course. All this point proves is that the world would be better off if everyone was pacifist, but since immoral societies will always be starting or threatening wars, it is necessary for just societies to sometimes enter into the fray. C.1 Preemption and other (?) If war is already inevitable, it's useless to try to protect innocent lives by not initiating the war. War would happen either war, so if striking first gives the moral society an advantage, it should be done. If preemption must have incontrovertible evidence, then I simply won’t argue for preemption but simply similar to it but with less strict standards. I don’t believe that that is the burden for preemption, but if it were, I would simply amend my contention. I did not contest the example of poor intelligence because it is only one example of false intelligence. I never advocated the prime infallibility of the UN. It’s OK for me to use UN policies as an example of keeping countries in check, sine that is a good thing, but I don’t need to favor the UN in every issue. Since Pro has to prove J.S. should never initiate war, he’s at much more a burden to show instances of failure than I am to demonstrate instances of success. Since the Six Day War is not a rare implausible event, it refutes the resolution on its very own as “never”, even as defined as a rule, becomes invalidated. Since the resolution is theoretical, by showing one historical example, we can theorize many more like it and thus disprove the resolution that way. Furthermore, I provided other hypothetical examples. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war; thus an alternative counter to the attack would have been preemptive war on America’s part. Since Japan was on its way to start a war with America, America could not have responded in any way that would not mark the start of war with Japan. C.2 Protection of Rights and Well-being The colonies began the revolution. Pro never explains how Britain initiated the war. “Many revolutions begin with the outbreak of violence, which is often a response to heightened repression or other extraordinary demands from government against their people. The American Revolution is an obvious example of this (Rule, 160). The violence took the form of the Revolutionary War”[2]. In other words the colonies literally reacted to the British with war. Humanitarian intervention does not necessarily equal war, but can undoubtedly take the shape of war. If extreme Hutu nationalists seek the genocide of the Tutsi minority [3], and outside societies wish to stop it by means of force, the only way they can do so is by outright war. Minor skirmishes would certainly not be enough. Pro drops the “utilitarianism is incompatible with rights” argument and ignores my theoretical, “If a society is seeking to enslave another or violate its basic rights, then that society is at right to start a war. Moreover, if a society is already enslaved, perhaps because of a previous war fought and lost, then that society has a right to try to escape its shackles.” [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl...