Trybiens Debate Team Topic Help

[Trybien]

So I recently joined my school's Debate team, more specifically LD (Lincoln, Douglas). A 1 v 1 style debate where two students argue on a topic usually regarding Philosophy in some way. I made this thread so you guys can express your opinion on each topic. There will be multiple rounds, and chances are, I'll take both Affirmative and Negative positions, so try to express opinions and even site links to both.


Current Topic:
Are individuals morally obligated to assist those in need.



Next Tournament
------------------------
Novice Tournament

[Holhol]

Are individuals morally obligated to assist those in need.

I just love debates, so I just had to come here. <3

My opinion on this matter: No. They are not. They don't need to assit anybody if they don't feel the need to. Those handicapped (either physically or mentally) should be able to assit themselves by working around whatever they may have. Sure, it may be NICE to help somebody, but what do they actually gain from this? They become dependent on others and seem to never understand the real world.

It bugs me when someone with some sort of problem eases their way out with it as an excuse. I have chronic insomnia, OCD, and ADHD. I never use any of these as an excuse. Instead, I work around these problems to be the best person I can be.

Now, there are a few special "special" cases out there. I'm talking major brain damage or something. But dude, if you're fit enough to be around the other people in the real world, you should be able to fend for yourself.

I recall seeing a woman on television with the bottom half of her body missing. You know what? She rolled herself around on a skateboard and even drove a car on her own. If she could do that, I'm pretty sure somebody with a wheelchair doesn't need to be pushed around 24/7.

Now, I'm actually not sure if this was what you were talking about, so I'll try to go on another related topic...

Say there is a homeless man on the street. The problem is that... he doesn't need to be. Everybody else can live a life. Why should you feel obligated to help him if he could very well get the money, himself? In the real world, there's such things as jobs. Being homeless does not excuse this. The move "Pursuit of Happiness" could sum it up well.

Yeah... Not sure where else to go from here. Bottom-line, it's nice to help. However, you are not morally obligated to do it.

[E.D.Revolution]

Another debate thread, eh? I see where you're getting at, but you need to list out how the Lincoln VS Douglass style is going to work.

While you can have the standard argument-and-3-point style, like a Public Forum, LvD style takes a totally differential approach.
since this is philosophy, it's not as simple as an affirmative or negative contention.... Rather, the contention must support your "value" and your "criterion" to holding the value.

So even if you're affirmative, that's not good enough. You need to uphold a "value," a philosophy in your argument. That value is the idea you, as a debator, holds paramount for the issue at hand. Your contentions must adhere to your "criterion," a specific form of your philosophy. What you argue must support your philosophy.

Unfortunately, if you enter any LvD-style tournament using the public forum, you're going to be in for a world of hurt. Those kinds of arguments are harder to hold. You can't really use Public Forum format to argue in an LvD style. You have to stand your ground on your philosophy. You need to prove your philosophy is BETTER than the other side's, not necessarily beat it. the best way to do it is to show that your opponent's philosophy is actually supporting your side.

Take the time to learn the LvD style. It's very confusing.

PS: You need to word the topic correctly. You will never see a topic go "Current Topic: xxx (in question format)" but rather "Resolved: xxx (statement format)" So the topic would be "Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need."

[~Count Olaf~]

My opinion on this matter: No. They are not. They don't need to assit anybody if they don't feel the need to. Those handicapped (either physically or mentally) should be able to assit themselves by working around whatever they may have. Sure, it may be NICE to help somebody, but what do they actually gain from this? They become dependent on others and seem to never understand the real world.

You seem to be responding very extremely to a very broad question, then contradicting your answer with your next statement. Feeling compelled to do something is exactly what an obligation is, so these people feel morally obligated to help.

We both believe that people are not morally obligated to fix everyone's problems, as it is often detrimental to the helped person's growth and their perception of the "real world," which consists of people who deeply want to fix everyone's problems and not of people who can or should.

However, merely helping is not inherently destructive; if I was to hold the door open for an amputee in a wheelchair it certainly would not harm them to do so nor would it be a moral obligation on my part, it is when I pay a large sum of money to replace the stranger's lost limbs with prosthetic limbs that I potentially harm them.

It bugs me when someone with some sort of problem eases their way out with it as an excuse. I have chronic insomnia, OCD, and ADHD. I never use any of these as an excuse. Instead, I work around these problems to be the best person I can be.

I agree. One can not use their crutch as a crutch when faced with difficulty.

Now, there are a few special "special" cases out there. I'm talking major brain damage or something. But dude, if you're fit enough to be around the other people in the real world, you should be able to fend for yourself.

I recall seeing a woman on television with the bottom half of her body missing. You know what? She rolled herself around on a skateboard and even drove a car on her own. If she could do that, I'm pretty sure somebody with a wheelchair doesn't need to be pushed around 24/7.

People can overcome their disabilities, but I should think that it took a lot of support from others, be it from family, friends, or otherwise, to bring her to this position.

Now, I'm actually not sure if this was what you were talking about, so I'll try to go on another related topic...

Say there is a homeless man on the street. The problem is that... he doesn't need to be. Everybody else can live a life. Why should you feel obligated to help him if he could very well get the money, himself? In the real world, there's such things as jobs. Being homeless does not excuse this. The move "Pursuit of Happiness" could sum it up well.

There is an abundance of people with homes who can not find jobs. Sometimes, though not always, external help is required for someone to overcome difficulty; someone has to give the man a job.

In closing, I believe that I am only obligated to help others when I am able and they are not.

[Stealthfire]

Define "morally obligated" and "assist those in need". If you can completely clarify that, it'll help your stand regardless of whatever direction you argue. It makes it easier to argue when you reference the topic as well. Since everybody would know what you're talking about. They may argue on what is a "correct" definition however. So make sure you can back your definitions.

Since I'm not actually a debater, I'm not too sure how the debate would actually work. So what I say might be completely irrelevant. That's just based on my experience in talking with people.

Oh, and consider what value you actually hold. It might seem like an obvious thing, but you need to tell people what is your philosophy/what you believe in.

[Trybien]

Another debate thread, eh? I see where you're getting at, but you need to list out how the Lincoln VS Douglass style is going to work.

While you can have the standard argument-and-3-point style, like a Public Forum, LvD style takes a totally differential approach.
since this is philosophy, it's not as simple as an affirmative or negative contention.... Rather, the contention must support your "value" and your "criterion" to holding the value.

So even if you're affirmative, that's not good enough. You need to uphold a "value," a philosophy in your argument. That value is the idea you, as a debator, holds paramount for the issue at hand. Your contentions must adhere to your "criterion," a specific form of your philosophy. What you argue must support your philosophy.

Unfortunately, if you enter any LvD-style tournament using the public forum, you're going to be in for a world of hurt. Those kinds of arguments are harder to hold. You can't really use Public Forum format to argue in an LvD style. You have to stand your ground on your philosophy. You need to prove your philosophy is BETTER than the other side's, not necessarily beat it. the best way to do it is to show that your opponent's philosophy is actually supporting your side.

Take the time to learn the LvD style. It's very confusing.

PS: You need to word the topic correctly. You will never see a topic go "Current Topic: xxx (in question format)" but rather "Resolved: xxx (statement format)" So the topic would be "Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need."

Thanks for the clarification, though I already know this... but that is no excuse for being vague. I'll work on making the first post better when I find time to do so.

Define "morally obligated" and "assist those in need". If you can completely clarify that, it'll help your stand regardless of whatever direction you argue. It makes it easier to argue when you reference the topic as well. Since everybody would know what you're talking about. They may argue on what is a "correct" definition however. So make sure you can back your definitions.

I have already confirmed what I believe the definitions to be, but that can change via what information I pull up on the topic.

[Gav]

Are individuals morally obligated to assist those in need.

I just love debates, so I just had to come here. <3

My opinion on this matter: No. They are not. They don't need to assit anybody if they don't feel the need to. Those handicapped (either physically or mentally) should be able to assit themselves by working around whatever they may have. Sure, it may be NICE to help somebody, but what do they actually gain from this? They become dependent on others and seem to never understand the real world.

My main problem is with your last statement, that the people helped never understand the real world. But we'll get to that later, when I start picking this out from the seams. Are you familiar with things called aides? Throughout the 4 years he's been in my classes, an autistic child has had an aide working with him. They are hired to help these kinds of people because they feel morally obligated to help them! THEY ARE SETTING AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER CHILDREN! ...Yeah, more on this later.

It bugs me when someone with some sort of problem eases their way out with it as an excuse. I have chronic insomnia, OCD, and ADHD. I never use any of these as an excuse. Instead, I work around these problems to be the best person I can be.

I cannot argue with personal statements.

Now, there are a few special "special" cases out there. I'm talking major brain damage or something. But dude, if you're fit enough to be around the other people in the real world, you should be able to fend for yourself.

Recall my first rebuttal. There are some people in my school district with major brain damage, yes, but you'd expect that, right? They are able to fend for themselves with guidance!

I recall seeing a woman on television with the bottom half of her body missing. You know what? She rolled herself around on a skateboard and even drove a car on her own. If she could do that, I'm pretty sure somebody with a wheelchair doesn't need to be pushed around 24/7.

People can push themselves on wheelchairs. No rebuttal.

Now, I'm actually not sure if this was what you were talking about, so I'll try to go on another related topic...

Say there is a homeless man on the street. The problem is that... he doesn't need to be. Everybody else can live a life. Why should you feel obligated to help him if he could very well get the money, himself? In the real world, there's such things as jobs. Being homeless does not excuse this. The move "Pursuit of Happiness" could sum it up well.

That's exactly the problem with society! Most places' owners are complete jerks, and won't take homeless people for an INTERVIEW! That's why they need someone to defend themselves! So that the homeless people can kickstart their lives again!

Yeah... Not sure where else to go from here. Bottom-line, it's nice to help. However, you are not morally obligated to do it.

Replies in blue, I take the stance that people should feel morally obligated to help people to a point.

That was fun.

[Holhol]

Even though it seems as if this is not LD style, I feel the need to respond to both Olaf and Gav, regardless.

My opinion on this matter: No. They are not. They don't need to assit anybody if they don't feel the need to. Those handicapped (either physically or mentally) should be able to assit themselves by working around whatever they may have. Sure, it may be NICE to help somebody, but what do they actually gain from this? They become dependent on others and seem to never understand the real world.

You seem to be responding very extremely to a very broad question, then contradicting your answer with your next statement. Feeling compelled to do something is exactly what an obligation is, so these people feel morally obligated to help.

We both believe that people are not morally obligated to fix everyone's problems, as it is often detrimental to the helped person's growth and their perception of the "real world," which consists of people who deeply want to fix everyone's problems and not of people who can or should.

However, merely helping is not inherently destructive; if I was to hold the door open for an amputee in a wheelchair it certainly would not harm them to do so nor would it be a moral obligation on my part, it is when I pay a large sum of money to replace the stranger's lost limbs with prosthetic limbs that I potentially harm them.

Well, you basically summed up what I want to say with a little bit more context. The only point I disagree with you on is that you said I contradicted myself. Where, exactly?

It bugs me when someone with some sort of problem eases their way out with it as an excuse. I have chronic insomnia, OCD, and ADHD. I never use any of these as an excuse. Instead, I work around these problems to be the best person I can be.

I agree. One can not use their crutch as a crutch when faced with difficulty.

Again, you've taken the words right out of my... fingers...?

Now, there are a few special "special" cases out there. I'm talking major brain damage or something. But dude, if you're fit enough to be around the other people in the real world, you should be able to fend for yourself.

I recall seeing a woman on television with the bottom half of her body missing. You know what? She rolled herself around on a skateboard and even drove a car on her own. If she could do that, I'm pretty sure somebody with a wheelchair doesn't need to be pushed around 24/7.

People can overcome their disabilities, but I should think that it took a lot of support from others, be it from family, friends, or otherwise, to bring her to this position.

Now, I'm actually not sure if this was what you were talking about, so I'll try to go on another related topic...

Say there is a homeless man on the street. The problem is that... he doesn't need to be. Everybody else can live a life. Why should you feel obligated to help him if he could very well get the money, himself? In the real world, there's such things as jobs. Being homeless does not excuse this. The move "Pursuit of Happiness" could sum it up well.

There is an abundance of people with homes who can not find jobs. Sometimes, though not always, external help is required for someone to overcome difficulty; someone has to give the man a job.

Gotta disagree with you there. You keep on trying until you can find the job you're working for. You don't wait for the job to find you: You go out and find the job. It may mean a regular visit to the soup kitchen and staying the night at a shelter, but in the long run, wouldn't it be worth it?

In closing, I believe that I am only obligated to help others when I am able and they are not.

I partially agree with you on the last statement.

Are individuals morally obligated to assist those in need.

I just love debates, so I just had to come here. <3

My opinion on this matter: No. They are not. They don't need to assit anybody if they don't feel the need to. Those handicapped (either physically or mentally) should be able to assit themselves by working around whatever they may have. Sure, it may be NICE to help somebody, but what do they actually gain from this? They become dependent on others and seem to never understand the real world.

My main problem is with your last statement, that the people helped never understand the real world. But we'll get to that later, when I start picking this out from the seams. Are you familiar with things called aides? Throughout the 4 years he's been in my classes, an autistic child has had an aide working with him. They are hired to help these kinds of people because they feel morally obligated to help them! THEY ARE SETTING AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER CHILDREN! ...Yeah, more on this later.

To be truthfully honest, you lost me. But, they are hired for doing their job. Not obligated. Those are, in truth, two entirely different aspects. There's a difference then feeling obligated to help and being hired for helping, even if the person felt obligated in the first place to make that his or her job.

It bugs me when someone with some sort of problem eases their way out with it as an excuse. I have chronic insomnia, OCD, and ADHD. I never use any of these as an excuse. Instead, I work around these problems to be the best person I can be.

I cannot argue with personal statements.

Now, there are a few special "special" cases out there. I'm talking major brain damage or something. But dude, if you're fit enough to be around the other people in the real world, you should be able to fend for yourself.

Recall my first rebuttal. There are some people in my school district with major brain damage, yes, but you'd expect that, right? They are able to fend for themselves with guidance!

Dude, you basically summed up what I said.

I recall seeing a woman on television with the bottom half of her body missing. You know what? She rolled herself around on a skateboard and even drove a car on her own. If she could do that, I'm pretty sure somebody with a wheelchair doesn't need to be pushed around 24/7.

People can push themselves on wheelchairs. No rebuttal.

Thank you for restating what I stated.

Now, I'm actually not sure if this was what you were talking about, so I'll try to go on another related topic...

Say there is a homeless man on the street. The problem is that... he doesn't need to be. Everybody else can live a life. Why should you feel obligated to help him if he could very well get the money, himself? In the real world, there's such things as jobs. Being homeless does not excuse this. The move "Pursuit of Happiness" could sum it up well.

That's exactly the problem with society! Most places' owners are complete jerks, and won't take homeless people for an INTERVIEW! That's why they need someone to defend themselves! So that the homeless people can kickstart their lives again!

It's called making an impression. To be brutally honest, I'd be more likely to hire someone who smelled like flowers then someone who smelled like trash. That's the unfortunate truth with most places, as well. That's why, even with limited items, you make use of them to be able to give an impression that's not homeless, but someone who is willing to take pride in their job while taking pride in themselves.

Yeah... Not sure where else to go from here. Bottom-line, it's nice to help. However, you are not morally obligated to do it.

Replies in blue, I take the stance that people should feel morally obligated to help people to a point.

That was fun.

No, still disagree with to a point. This would take me to a bunch of other ideals.

Mostly, I guess the main point I want to make is something beyond me being cruel. I want to treat everybody like a real person, not somebody who you'd open doors for just because their handicapped. You should be able to open the door for everybody, and also treat everybody the way you'd want to be treated. Think of it in this perspective: Would you want everybody to treat you like a baby for the rest of your life? Or somebody who can grab that item off the top shelf in someway or another without someone getting it for you?

[~Count Olaf~]

Well, you basically summed up what I want to say with a little bit more context. The only point I disagree with you on is that you said I contradicted myself. Where, exactly?

No. They are not. They don't need to assit anybody if they don't feel the need to.

If they feel they need to, they feel morally obligated to do so. That contradicts "no." Unless by "needing to" you mean that it benefits them in some way.

Gotta disagree with you there. You keep on trying until you can find the job you're working for. You don't wait for the job to find you: You go out and find the job. It may mean a regular visit to the soup kitchen and staying the night at a shelter, but in the long run, wouldn't it be worth it?

That's not what I meant. I meant that if you were to go to a job interview and get the job, someone gave you the job.

I partially agree with you on the last statement.

How so?

[Phantom]

Trybien, it would be really helpful to all of us if you posted your Value and Criterion so everyone can post their arguments based off of them...Even though the little debate up this page looks good, it's not gonna help at all if it doesn't support your philosophy