LD debate topic for Nov/Dec

Even though it has been a dud thus far, I anticipate some good argumentation in the remaining three speeches. By forfeiting the 1AC, the affirmative side of this debate forfeits any right to suggest a value for this round to be judged by; a value criterion, dictating how that value is to be achieved; resolutional analysis, including observations, frameworks, definitions, etc. ; and contentions. Thus, by default, the affirmative accepts the negative's value and value criterion for this debate (unless he intends to argue that my pair is abusive). The affirmative also accepts my definitions, unless he intends on arguing they are abusive. The affirmative may not formulate contentions in the 1AR or 2AR, meaning that if any of the negative's contentions are even partially standing at the end of this debate, that is reason enough to vote negative, as no other contentions are on Pro's side to compete to fulfill the resolution. Thus, I begin my case. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave. "-Ayn Rand in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" Because I agree with Ayn Rand, I negate the resolution ("Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need"). Resolutional AnalysisDefinitionsIndividual - A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family[1]Moral - Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character[2]Obligation - An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment[3]Assist - To give usually supplementary support or aid to[4]Need - A thing that is wanted or required[5]Liberty - The power or scope to act as one pleases[8]Autonomy - Freedom from external control or influence; independence[9]Negative Right - Rights to liberty, to freedom from being "forced to do anything [one] doesn't want"[7]Positive Right - Right that obligates a specific course of action on an individual[6]; positive rights and negative rights cannot coexist, as positive rights infringe upon negative rights[7]Observation One: Views on morality differ from individual to individual, society to societyBecause morality is subjective (and the moral philosophies endeavoring to claim it is not lack universal acceptance), it is inevitable that people will have different morals. The same applies to the diverse societies of the world. On the individual level, for example, there is the issue of abortion. Some feel it is justifiable while others feel it is not. On the societal level, I turn to the example of Nazi Germany. I assume that anyone would agree with me in stating that Nazi Germany had some different morals than America does, today. Observation Two: A Moral Obligation to Assist People in Need Constitutes a Positive Right of the People in NeedAs defined, positive rights obligate specific courses of action. The resolution is obligating individuals to engage in the act of assisting. Obligating that individuals assist people in need is recognising that people in need have a positive right to assistance. ValueToday, I hold the value of justice, commonly defined simply as "giving each his or her due". I intend to show that a moral obligation to assist people in need is unjust, through my value criterion. .. Value CriterionThe value criterion for today's round will be the protection of what John Locke describes as the inalienable rights. Locke states that individuals come together in a society, giving up freedoms in exchange for protection of rights. A society should be based upon the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. A moral obligation to assist people in need infringes upon an individual's inalienable rights. Contention One: Positive Rights Abridge Liberty and AutonomyImposing a moral obligation upon individuals violates their negative right to act as they please, their right to liberty. Such an obligation also abridges an individual's right to autonomy, to self-governance. The moral obligation disregards the individual's moral values and substitutes a set that states we should value people in need's positive rights over individuals' negative rights. Some might claim that because a moral obligation is derived from morals, it is not necessarily violating rights (to liberty and autonomy). However, when such an obligation is derived from an external source, it is not respecting an individual's rights. Contention Two: The Moral Obligation Endangers IndividualsAn incident commonly cited by those in affirmation of the moral obligation is the story of Yue Yue, a girl hit by two cars and ignored by 18 bystanders. [10] No matter how horrible it may be to suggest this, it was possible that the child had AIDS. It was also possible that anyone assisting her would be hit by a vehicle themself. It is ridiculous to expect individuals to risk their own right to life in order to assist others. Assisting people in need is not inherently immoral; it should just be a matter of choice, not obligation. Contention Three: The Altruistic Actions May Lead to Poor ConsequencesThis point shall be explained through an example. When three Malden Mills factories were destroyed, CEO Aaron Feuerstein announced that he would continue to pay workers' salaries despite a lack of production. Then there was former GE (General Electric) CEO Jack Welch, who fired thousands of employees in his attempt to make his company more successful. One was loved by the media, whereas the other was hated. The ironic twist of the story happens to be the results of the actions. Malden Mills declared bankruptcy when its CEO ran out of money, leaving the employees out of jobs. Welch, on the other hand, created tens of thousands of jobs more than he lost. The point of this narrative is not to state that altruism will always turn out poorly, but that it should be a matter of choice due to the constant danger that it will lead to failure. ConclusionI believe I have adequately shown that a moral obligation to assist people in need is unjust. It abridges and/or endangers individuals' rights to liberty (contention one), autonomy (contention one), life (contention two), and property (contention three). The three inalienable rights are threatened by this proposition as well as autonomy and negative rights as a whole. Please note that the value and value criterion to use to judge this debate are not in dispute (as Pro had one speech earlier to suggest a competing pair). Definitions are not either. I now return the debate to Pro and wish him the best of luck. References[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[6] . http://www.webster.edu...[7] . http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...[8] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[9] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[10] . http://www.tinyurl.com...