Resolved: Tell others that the water will be shut off.

NOTE: PRO makes the accusation that my first two points were the same. If you intend to believe this regardless of what is said, skip down to "Nobody will believe a 10 year old." . For the rest, stick around. Upon close observation, it is rather clear that these two points are not the same. This is due to the fact that one with acceptable credibility doesn't need an acceptable amount of resources. All the same, one with an acceptable amount of resources doesn't need and acceptable amount of credibility. Thus, it is rather apparent that the first two points were created to individually point out that Amy more than likely lacks the two tools (#1: credibility to rely on self-testimony. #2; Empirical evidence) which she could use to convince this neighborhood of their inevitable plight. Concerning why I believe myself as an 18 year old would not be able to convince a community, I stated my reason quite clear ". . . convince my community to act in advance on this without solid evidence." If anything though, this does help me in seeing where the confusion of where "my first two points being the same" came from. In point one, I begin to lead into point two with the following line: "Even when neglecting the fact that Amy is just a 10 year old tike . . ." My apologies. This should have been where point 2 started. With that being addressed, I think I can return to the real debate: =========================================== RE: RE: Nobody will believe a ten-year-old =========================================== 1) Alright, so the first part of PRO's rebuttal to this basically consist of the notion that "a child speaking sincerely will no doubt be convincing to adults, as shown by all the cases of domestic violence." As interesting as a response this is, I cannot help but point out that my esteemed opponent has already exposed the flaw in this argument for me. Observe the following: "Don't get me wrong; telling neighbors about a water shortage is not in the same league as reporting abuse -- but then that is not my point. Rather, these unsavory realities have raised public awareness such that a child likely would be heard." The fact that the gravity of these two situations are incomparible is exactly why simply warning the neighborhood sincerely would be ineffective. When it comes to matters such as domestic violence, I would agree that adults are likely going to listen in on children to express their observations on this matter. This is because (as Noel points out) such is common in today's society; it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Amy could easily be involved in a child centered domestic dispute, given the high rate of occurrences at which they occur today. But when it comes to a matter such as the water cutting off, is there really a high rate of occurrences where a ten year old has in depth knowledge on the clandestine plans involved in a powerful corporation? This alone would suggest that PRO is simply using a false analogy. Sincerely or not, that won't change the fact that people will consider Amy's "knowledge" as being questionable at best. Furthermore, we're talking about individuals of the age who act out what they see on their precious Saturday morning cartoons as well as hold great belief in fictional beings such as Santa Claus or the Boogey Man. They'd probably think she was simply playing a game with her friend ann. At most, they'll probably believe that Amy just misheard something on TV. Again, her age is one of the main reasons telling her story would most likely be unsuccessful. 2) The second part of PROs rebuttal consist of the idea that Amy could simply get help, but this doesn't change the fact that skepticism will be prevalent. Who is to say that the 18 year old big brother, the nice lady, or their mothers will believe the story? Furthermore, even IF the above believed Amy, this still wouldn't work as well as PRO is hoping. After all, Amy and Ann have until the afternoon. By the time they managed to convince an ENTIRE neighborhood (which again, I doubt it due to the matters I spoke of before that concern both Amy's credibility as well as the lack of evidence), it would be too late. Thus, we'd be stuck with a whole neighborhood who knew the water would run out but didn't do anything about it. At the very least, not everyone in the neighborhood would have access to water by the time Amy was finished protesting. Now when going back to PROs use of Mill in PRO R1, I cannot help but notice that she advocated "happiness for the greatest number of people." Taking this into account, my plan insures without a doubt that the whole neighborhood would get water, thus would insure happiness for the greatest number of people. My objections presented to the resolution in my first two contentions still stand, so I will now move on to PRO's rebuttal to my third and fourth contentions. ====================================== RE: RE: Sell the water, albeit cheaply ====================================== The price of the bikes (as I had shown in R1) would likely be cheap (50 bucks per bike), thus, Amy would essentially trading her labor for two bikes. This is matter of equivalent exchange as there was no point in the original story where it was suggested that Amy desired more money than she needed. Raising the prices to the level of "high way robbery" would not only be unfair but utterly pointless. ============================================================ RE: RE: Business skills, intelligence, and value of a dollar ============================================================ I believe PRO missed the point of this contention. I'm not trying to make Amy out to be some aggressive business tycoon (straw man). Rather, I'm merely suggesting that more comes out of this for Amy than simply getting a bike. The only way PRO's argument would have any validity would be if Amy's goal was merely to make money for the sake of having money. For in that case, PRO would be correct in that Amy could get the most amount of cash through skyrocketing the prices However, given the fact that she merely wants a bike for herself and her friend, such action isn't even remotely the case. Besides that, the skills which I brought up only come as unintended. =================== RE RE: Valuable Lesson =================== PRO:"Finally, it sounds like you would have Amy stick it to any boy-scout drop-out neighbors who just weren't prepared." Response: Of course. If they wish to avoid what they think of as a predicament in the future, then this is indeed the best course of action; give them an incentive to avoid what they consider a problem, and therefore help them. This is indeed altruistic. Given that PRO's rebuttal to my previous contention falls apart, her rebuttal to this one has as well (the idea of Amy being an aggressive entrepreneur is what it relied on). Thus, I believe I've shown that Amy is better off not telling anyone about the water than she is telling everyone about the water. For as I've shown, the benefit of having water is GUARANTEED for my plan, whereas PRO's plan relies on the off chance that people are really going to abide by the words of a ten year old on a matter such as this. With that said, I now await PRO's final rebuttal.