LD Sept/Oct

Comments: I was thinking LD minus the CX, I mean, we can't really do the CX, but everything else can be done. My opponent's case: Value: We have the same value, no clash there to worry about. Criterion: I negated his criterion of consequentialism by showing that it violates minority rights, and he never rebutted this attack. That means you drop his criterion and accept mine. Contention 1: Well, first off, this falls under my criterion, and that's what you have to judge the debate on, because his is dropped. Also, in response to his defense, I would like to point out that slavery and racism were probably more beneficial to the white majority than they were detrimental to the black minority. Even if it doesn't the example I mentioned earlier, with the live organ "donation" is another example of utilitarianism gone bad. The rights of an innocent man were horribly violated in order to harvest his organs. Contention 2: Not saving people is not a violation of rights. I am not the cause of their death, I am in no way violating their right to life. Therefore, affirming the resolution violates more lives, as in affirming, you kill one, and in negating, you kill none. Contention 3: Consequences alone cannot determine morality. As Immanuel Kant pointed out in his "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals," "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes..." I did not try to cause their death, I could have prevented it, but I didn't, because the actions necessary for doing so are immoral. Furthermore, if I am not responsible for the deaths of the children in Africa, then I am not responsible in this case. The situations are analogous, in this I kill one to save many, in Africa, I give up all that I have in order to save many. If I am responsible for the deaths of the many in the resolution, then I would be responsible for the deaths of the people in Africa. My case: Value: We have agreement on the value. Criterion: His attack on my criterion fails, for several reasons. First, most importantly, I negated his criterion, and he dropped my attack, so my criterion is the only one on the flow, and if you drop that off the flow, there is no criterion to judge the debate on, so you have no choice but to accept my criterion. Also, my criterion does not violate lives, like he suggests. It protects lives. Minority rights are necessary in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority. They must be upheld. He also claims that affirming the resolution minimizes right violations, but this is a) irrelevant, because that is not even a suggested criterion for this debate, and b) it is untrue. Affirming the resolution violates the one innocent's right to life. Negating the resolution does not violate any lives, as not saving someone is not a violation of their right to life, that's why things like triage are okay. Contention 1: My opponent claims we cause the death of the many innocents. That is just not true. As I pointed out in my Africa example, not saving someone that we have to power to save is certainly not killing them. The starving Africans are dying because of famine and drought destroying their food supply, not because I am not giving up all that I have to help them. If my opponent really believes killing and letting die are equivalent, I suggest that he go and join the Peace Corps. right now, and forget this debate, because under his logic, he is a homicidal maniac if he doesn't. Contention 2: Like I said, it probably does, depending on whose version utilitarianism you use. Anyways, as I said earlier, the pertinent example is of the live organ donor, which is just as bad, but justified by utilitarianism.