LD debate topic for Nov/Dec

Pro begins by stating that he is allowed to build a case in the 1AR but will not because I requested it. However, the 1AR does not include the formation of of new points. It consists of defending the affirmative case and attacking the negative case.[1][2][3]Definitions"the fact is that the con defined moral and obligation separately, even though it is a phrase which forces it to adopt the new meaning of : something someone should do, but is not legally bound to do."I have represented my opponent's logic in the form of a syllogism:P1 - Moral and obligation are defined separatelyP2 - Moral regards right and wrong behavior or human characterP3 - Obligation is "[a]n act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment"P4 - The resolution does not refer to a legal obligationC - The resolution regards what should be done, not what someone is bound, committed, or has a duty to doNeedHe suggested a counter definition, which is illegal.Moral ObligationA: MisinterpretationPro's interpretation: "something someone should do, but is not legally bound to do."Why it is incorrect: The definition of obligation states that the individual is (morally or legally) bound to an action. That, or the individual has a duty or commitment to the action. Last time I checked, "bound", "commitment", and "duty" did not refer to what one should do, but what one is being made do. If I have a moral obligation, I am being bound to the action; I simply do not have the choice.B: Intent of the ResolutionThe NFL creates resolutions with an intent. The underlying question of this debate is asking "should we have to help people in need?", rather than "is it a good thing if people help people in need?". With Pro's interpretation of the resolution, there is no ground for the negative (because this is an official topic for debate, the NFL intentionally created a wording which supports arguments on both sides). There is a reason for every word's place in the resolution. If the meaning of the resolution was as simple as Pro wishes to claim, the resolution would be "From a moral standpoint, individuals should help people in need but do not need to if they have anything else they want to do instead". How uncontroversial.C: ContextIf I say that "someone trained in CPR is morally obligated to perform it", it has an entirely different meaning than "someone trained in CPR should perform it". The resolution is about a moral obligation, a moral duty, a moral commitment, and not a moral "should".Observation OneSo he quotes Peter Singer, a major proponent of the moral obligation.[4] First of all, I was not arguing that morals differ extremely from culture to culture. His own source captures what I meant with the statement that "[c]oncern for kin and reciprocity to those who treat us well are considered good in virtually all-human societies." My argument about societies was that there will never be one universal morality. And a moral obligation on individuals is universal (as opposed to "Resolved: Most individuals have a moral obigation to assist people in need").He ignored my statements on the differences in morals on the individual level.Observation TwoDropped. It is truthful beyond a doubt, now, that a moral obigation is a positive right for the people in need.Value and Value CriterionHis first attackHe simply stated what he will state in attacking my contentions:P1: My interpretation of definitions is rightP2: Your argument does not match up with my interpretationC: Your argument is invalidI have shown P1 to be wrong.David SchmidtzBasically, this opinion from another biased proponent of the resolution[5] just states that egoism gives us "something to live for" and that altruism gives us "more [to live for]". His interpretation of his quote? "...both [the altruist and the person in need] have more then what they had before and therefore have more to appreciate. And therefore life is boosted by elping others meaning that cons value and value criterion or irrelevant." I see nothing about gain for the giver other than a reason to live. No idea where he found his interpretation of the quote. He then states that my value and criteiron are irrelevant. Is he arguing that we should break away from LD fomat by neglecting use of a value and value criterion? Regardless, we agreed on LD format. My value and criterion stand, as there is no opposing choice.Contention OneP1: My interpretation of definitions is rightP2: Your argument does not match up with my interpretationC: Your argument is invalidNote that he did not question the observation two. The contention is not specifically about a moral obligation, whereas his attack is. All positive rights lead to this. The contention was not attacked. He just misrepresented the contention, a strawman fallacy.Contention TwoHe brings up "calling a professional". Right, so if someone is burning alive in a car, I have fulfilled my moral obligation by calling 911. This argument is not relevant to the topic. Firemen, policemen, paramedics, etc. have a legal obligation to assist people in need. The moral obligation is not fulfilled by these individuals. A legal obligation is.Contention ThreeA: Irrelevant, as it is a real life exampleThe contention was that it sometimes leads to bad results. This was one example to prove it.B: Selfish IntentsUnwarranted claim, much? I doubt Mr. Feuerstein intended to run out of money and declare bankruptcy. It is simply an error to think this. Publicity in exchange for life's savings without any monetary gain... Hm...I don't need to argue that the CEO of GE wasn't self-interested, that his motive was not wanting to make his company larger.Voting IssuesMy value and value criterion cannot be contested here. Pro forfeited his right to build a case and a value and value criterion are required for LD format.My observation two was uncontested. A moral obligation is a positive right for the people in need.My contention one was that positive rights infringe upon inalienable rights. He never mentioned a word about positive rights.If you believe that Con has any part of his arguments standing, he wins. Pro has no contentions to compete with his.Pro's last speech is not for arguments, as per LD format. I would not have a chance to respond.Vote Con.ReferencesNote: Sources 1-3 were found by clicking "Online Resources" under Lincoln Douglas Debate at http://www.nflonline.org... (nflonline.org is the official website of the National Forensic League, which created LD as a debate form)[1] Page 35 of http://tinyurl.com...[2] Page 35 of http://tinyurl.com...[3] "Round Structure: Oh, I have another speech?" of http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...