The Center Stage

[Terywj [태리]]

Actually I think I have a topic I may want to do a debate here in.

Edit--WTF ring announcer? This is some kind of sporting event?

 

[asianaussie]

see post 1018 onwards in this thread

specifically 1046

 

[Deleted member]

If Asianaussie doesn't want to do gay marriage, maybe you can do the "is it right to kill one person to save six?" dilemma. I'd personally like to see a debate on that.

I'm fine with this.

 

[Dre89]

Edit--WTF ring announcer? This is some kind of sporting event?

We take our debating seriously here....

 

[Terywj [태리]]

>sporting event
>seriously

>not sure

Anyway, as a headsup I guess? I'm looking into something regarding the health vs. wealth situation specifically in the United States, the health wealth gradient, stuff like that.

 

[asianaussie]

if we're doing the utilitarianism debate (or the one life vs six one), then fire away

auspher (and tery) can pick sides - ill be primarily addressing auspher, others can feel free to jump in and do whatever

you can have the first post, it'll be a test of your formatting and expression

i will use proper formatting when im actually debating

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Some important people on the last page advised against non-1v1's in Center Stage so I'll probably just watch.

 

[Evil Eye]

Looks like it'll be Auspher, then. And I agree that the Newbie Under Review (NUR, start using it it has an amusing Frankenstein-like sound to it) should start the Center Stage debate. Like, in general.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

So uh. Someone wanna have a euthanasia discussion with me here or something?

 

[Dre89]

I might do a euthanasia discussion with you. Which side do you want?

Also, in case you guys didn't know, the 2011 forums awards are in voting now, and there's a Master Debater award for the best debater in the DH.

There are three finalists, but everyone only gets one vote per category. Seeing as it's our forum, we want to make sure we select who the victor is. We don't know how many outsiders will vote, so what we want to is get everyone in the DH and PG to vote here, and then everyone will vote for the one with the most votes here, to ensure that they win.

So place your votes here. The DHers will place theirs in the DH.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I might do a euthanasia discussion with you. Which side do you want?

I guess I'd like to side that voluntary euthanasia, more specifically active voluntary euthanasia, should be morally permissible, etc. etc. I've never done this stuff so I'd like to give it a try.

 

[Dre89]

Thought you'd go with that.

Ok I'll take the other side.

 

[Orboknown]

I might do a euthanasia discussion with you. Which side do you want?

Also, in case you guys didn't know, the 2011 forums awards are in voting now, and there's a Master Debater award for the best debater in the DH.
So place your votes here. The DHers will place theirs in the DH.

I havent seen many of you guys posting here,but i do read the DH threads a lot.

That said, Dre seems to be to me the most open minded and prepared debater in all the topics.
Vote-Dre

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I guess I'd like to side that voluntary euthanasia, more specifically active voluntary euthanasia, should be morally permissible, etc. etc. I've never done this stuff so I'd like to give it a try.

If we aren't bound by 1 vs 1, then I will participate, and get the wheel spinning with a small little expression of this (though honestly I haven't had much of an opinion on this sort of thing, so bare with me here) of various topics and stances upon a variety of different issues.

I suppose the things that would be considered against euthanasia is basically the belief that it may appear as "voluntary suicide", which suicide is of course not permissible (or is it?) At any rate, looking at it from that angle, on the assumption suicide is wrong, it seems fairly parallel that it would be by extension wrong as well, but perhaps we'll need a closer look upon it. What makes suicide wrong precisely? Why do we want it to be something that even transcends the moral realm and is something that the legal system tries to prevent at all costs (unfortunately or not, legality and morality are not in sync with each other due to a line of politics between the two, but I digress).

Is it because there is a loss of life, and we believe that any loss of life is to be wrong? This cannot be true, if we are to be consistent with killing at wars or to defend ourselves from attackers on a more personal level. Is it wrong because we consider it murder upon thyself, and being a murder not in defense it becomes unjustified? This may be tricky at first glance, but that is because there is some depth we need to flatten. What makes murder wrong? Is it because it is unnatural? No, because it is not, there are even reasons to murder for resourceful purposes like the non-humanoid animals, which may be permissible. Is it wrong to kill when there are no other sources of food but the flesh of a fellow human being? Murder via self-defense seems to do little good to shed light on this, for it involves a force acting out against us first (so therefore it is defensive and not offensive), and it is interesting that our minds intuitively tell us this is helpful. But what if someone were under the condition of starvation, and upon seeing us, acts offensively, taking a life to sustain another, if he is right, then stopping him would be wrong, and therefore defending yourself would be wrong.

This is a good point, for it means either being under a state of starvation gives you priority over a life full of vitality, and that there is a moral obligation to satisfy anyone starving with your own being if nothing else exists. Difficulties rise here since there are many philosophical dilemmas that can be brought forth. What if there are two starving individuals? Is the one closer to death going to eat by virtue of having a greater amount of the priority giving trait? Or is the more healthy one obligated for he is the one more likely to survive, and the life-trait that this is all centered around grants priority? There are even circumstances where the two were seemingly equally sick, or that the persons involved did not no what measurements that could be used to determine such. Perhaps all of this convoluted mess is missing the point or else we will end in aporia, let us take a step backward from this.

What is it that allows definitively to speak on matters of being and not-being? Are we humans not allowed to speak of such matters? Clearly not, and it is much needed. But can we dictate the freedom to make all decisions over ourselves when they concern our presence or lack thereof of our life? Now this brings up a whole different segment to vault over, what is it that we have absolute possession over? Absolute as in something purely ours with no interference from another. Anything outside of our bodies can instantly be negated as absolute possession, for we cannot manipulate it as we wish and may be taken away and "owned" by another. How about our body? As for manipulation, we can consciously control it of our own volition, but not absolutely for there are many vital functions that continue subconsciously and any infections or other cannot be removed with pure will. The body may even be involuntarily controlled, as in moved against one's own wishes and thus not mentally performing the act but being a physical conduit to the idea of someone else.

This brings us to the aforementioned will: this is what one thinks of ultimately as a person, the personality, the ethical codes, and not the physical structure of them or involuntary actions which are not their own, and is categorized by almost all of physical functions or appearances. It is unequivocally ours and no one else's. It is, however, affected partially from our physical status, due to the mind obviously being the keeper of the will, and anything wrong or fed to the brain is used in the realm of our consciousness. So basically it is purely ares but not entirely understood or commanded, so possession goes beyond functionality or knowledge and is simply bound down to the isolated freedom in of itself, irrespective of the preset situations and the debatable circumstances of what causes each movement of the will. Best not to leap into a determinism vs free will debate, we shall simply acknowledge the isolated free movement as who we are, and not the situations that we are not voluntarily thrust upon, and in fact, this shows us that the more knowledge and situations thrust upon us, the more we can be ourselves and the larger we become. Now is this acknowledgement helpful? Incredibly so, for we know very well that now we must be able to decide whether we continue to exist or not, and that none other has any obligation to stop it.

One distinction needs to be made, which involves the difference between suicide and the definition of euthanasia, the latter being a method of prevent suffering and/or an inevitable unending coma (the coma being uncertain for what about new discovered technology or strides in medical knowledge, or inexplicable recoveries, and etc.) It is interesting that it reminds us that there is such an air of uncertainty with the principles of murder we passed by. For example, defending yourself against an attacker, ending their life instead of yours, ultimately reveals the fact that the fact whether you would've died if you hadn't killed him is never revealed. The same is with resourceful murder, to kill for food, for it is uncertain whether the both could survive if they had continued doing what they are doing by either finding food or being saved from a third party. That means certainty or uncertainty has nothing to do with any of this. So we were right in thinking it was nonsense when we discussed measuring wellness and sickness for priority, and it seems that like the deontology and stoic ethical principles would decree, the will is essentially what creates the realm of right or wrong, which seems rather fateful, since it is we who seemingly have created ethical principles in the world to begin with in juxtaposition to the natural "survival of the fittest" animal kingdom that deals more with Lady Luck then what our more gifted minds seem to rely on.

With this we can step back to a much previous question, and one that is often taken for granted and could have in all honesty been said without much observation, is that murder is glaringly wrong because of the same laws that bind thievery wrong. When it voluntarily robs freedom, the freedom of our wills, it does so more than any other action could ever possibly do, considering once it is committed, all freedom is absent. This explains why primary inhibitors are by default in our minds wrong, and that two starving humans fighting to eat one another have no individual priorities. In light of this, we can now see voluntary euthanasia quite well now. Better than looking at in terms of probabilities, in terms of suffering versus life (as in, we will not allow you to die no matter how much you suffer because life is so precious), or any other walls we had ran into hitherto. The conclusion: Voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible.

if we're doing the utilitarianism debate (or the one life vs six one), then fire away

auspher (and tery) can pick sides - ill be primarily addressing auspher, others can feel free to jump in and do whatever

you can have the first post, it'll be a test of your formatting and expression

i will use proper formatting when im actually debating

This one I shall also comment on, and with more brevity (hears a wave of distant sighs of relief from far away), for this to me is quite the simple question. Thinking in terms of utilitarianism is brilliant, it like any other method has its flaws when trying to stand on its own, but there are many things to love about it. It rings so naturally with our minds, since we see greater amounts of valuable things being more valuable as lesser amounts. We see that if offered for a world of 3/4s happy people or 1/2 of people are happy, we would choose the first for the obvious reason is that the things that we so rightly value, such as happiness, life, and so on, would logically become greater when increased. But of course, people do see issues with it, and in fact looking at the above text colossus, one could most clearly ring out with: "If freedom of the will is so important, how could it possibly be correct to rob someone, as you yourself word it, in order to save life, which you put below choice?"

Well, the thing is, it is true that you are obviously robbing that person of what we have put above life if we are to pick the larger amount of life from the lesser, whereas picking the lesser involves non-action, therefore nothing is robbed. However, being granted in the circumstance the certainty of sacrificing one to definitely save six others, it means that non-action is only physical, there is mental action (although of course, if someone were ignorant of the situation or of that "certified" way of saving their lives, what makes the mental non-action is not present, for there was no freely chosen choice to pick one over the other, and thus anyone oblivious or unsure of what is happening could under no circumstances be blamed for any voluntary fault, and by extension any fault.) The point is, you are robbing either way, just one lacks physical involvement, but unfortunately that one involves a greater robbery. Six people, if chosen, are robbed of their freedom to save the one's freedom. It isn't really about picking which act is the least morally acceptable, it is about picking the action that is least damaging. The previous distinction is needed because anyone acknowledging the situation somehow achieves a state of immorality regardless of what they choose, for not only was the situation not caused by them (let alone willingly, which would make it immoral), but also because it isn't wrong to coincidentally be in a situation or acknowledge the possible decision to be made, which would be nonsense and has nothing to do with the will. Ending the life of the one individual can be down without being immoral as well, the only immoral action would be to choose the one life over the six due to biased reasons.

I suppose most of the issue would arise from the fact that most would consider killing the one to save the six dubs you a murderer from performing a murderous action. We defined murder being wrong due to voluntarily ending the freedom of another, though in this situation, it isn't strictly voluntarily. As mentioned in the above paragraph, being in the situation and also seeing the moral decision that could be made is not voluntary. The situation has to be dealt with, even not doing anything and letting the six die is a form of dealing with it from your physical non-action by virtue of your involuntary mind action. Therefore it does NOT require the mind of a murderer to kill the one to save the six, and thus isn't murder, since by murdering you are a murderer, and if not one, you do not do the defining action. This is key, since it seems to show again that the mental freedom, the very thing we are, is what makes something wrong, and that the same thing done for different reasons actually warps the mental state of it, which we all know very well. Meaning ulterior motives, you could kill the one individual because you hated him, and the moral facade of it conceals the wrongful robbery that took place. Therefore the effect was the best it could be, but the cause was still bad. The same thing could be said about people using guns and knives, all people would say using knives to kill people is much more gruesome and sick because it has so much more free-will implications than a gun, which to a person who has it can view shooting someone as, "pulling the trigger", and not, "robbing this person of his life". Of course, either way it is wrong, but merely just a demonstration as to how mentalities on how some act is done greatly displays the moral state of the acting agent. Conclusion: Saving the six lives by sacrificing the one is morally permissible.


If all this doesn't earn me a golden ticket to the Debate Hall, I have no idea what will.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to take away my signature.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I guess I'll be playing devil's advocate on euthanasia now, since Holder came in and said everything before I even got to start.

 

[Dre89]

I'll let you two juke it out.

Don't worry holder, you'll probably get in when they put you up for review.

Thanks for the vote Orboknown, but I think they decided not to collaborate votes here first, so just vote in the actual thing for whoever you want. Also if you post a bit more I'll mention you in the Jedi Council and we'll review you.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Bahah, I'm so sorry, I even broke my own philosophy of, "Never say everything all at once," (can't remember who said that, but it is a good quote in my opinion). It is a bad habit... It is hard for me to say something with any the teeniest bit of assumption on anything, which means I end up climbing the whole ladder which was supposed to be the finish, not the starting line.

 

[Orboknown]

I'll let you two juke it out.

Don't worry holder, you'll probably get in when they put you up for review.

Thanks for the vote Orboknown, but I think they decided not to collaborate votes here first, so just vote in the actual thing for whoever you want. Also if you post a bit more I'll mention you in the Jedi Council and we'll review you.

Thanks dre.
Ill post as often as possible here(assuming i can say something intelligent on the subject)

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Have you guys recently covered topics such as abortion, or the superior ethical type (deontology, utilitarian, virtue, a mix?), a discussion of individual virtues, or the death penalty, or whether killing Aunt Bea is wrong (I don't know if anyone has heard of that utilitarianism example that is a bit different from the trolley problem). I'd comment on either one of these if anyone wants to discuss anything like these or something else.

 

[Dre89]

None of us has been done in awhile, the only thing that's been done recently is the trolley problem. Plus most of the current PGers are new anyway, so they probably didn't participate in those threads (apart from the trolley problem).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Then if anyone sees something I thought of on the top of my head or has any other topic, I am game. I need to show if I have any skill.

 

[Okuser]

Hello, I would like to be made a Smash Debater.

I am/was a cross examination (cx, policy) debater that has won 3 State Championship titles and was nationally recognized in the debate circuit. I've gotten a couple TOC bids and I placed in NFL nationals multiple times.

Thank you.

 

[asianaussie]

prove it then, flaunting irl accomplishments does nothing here

the only post i've seen of yours is an incredibly brief collection of mundane facts and the dismissal of an argument, notably refusing to consider points from the OP's perspective and instead saying 'authorities said this, henceforth your argument is null and void'

the point in this subforum isn't to win arguments, it's to prove you can debate online in a proper fashion - for all we know, you merely have a domineering and memorable manner of debate, and managed to win through on that alone in your real life debates

 

[Okuser]

I didn't refute his "argument" because it wasn't an argument at all, he was proposing questions and did not take an actual stance in his narrative. I was simply sharing an alternative to the assumption about identity that the OP made in his post.

I also don't see how my past achievements in Debate are irrelevant here. My 6 extremely successful years of competitive debating ought to mean something, especially in a place like this. In addition, I am now a part-time Coach for a couple debate teams.

 

[asianaussie]

a good forum debater provokes discussion by addressing individual points, rather than taking the opportunity to smother an argument by breaking down one of its assumptions, as you have done (by dismissing the idea of human-conceived identity, iirc) - another way you could have gone about it is ask questions in return -

Spoiler

is there a plausible way to define the boundaries of 'identity', or 'ego'? those bacteria you mentioned would be hunted and killed by your body if they had made it into systemic circulation, so you could argue that the 'identity' rejects them as 'self'.

an interesting point: the body would respond similarly to immature sperm if they were exposed to the body's immune system, so why is one traditionally classified as part of your identity while the other is made out to be distinct?

it is completely different to the win/lose debate scenarios you will see in competitive debating, where you will often be completely shutting down opponents in any way possible - here you will often see people going back and forth on a number of multiquoted posts, adding something to their argument each time while maintaining their key points: most of the time you are trying to convince fellow debaters, not impartial judges

your achievements aren't irrelevant, persay, but they mean a lot less here than they would in a competitive debating society/club, since this is a forum for discussion, not a venue for competition - a good example is this very thread: you debate in a thought-provoking and intelligent way in here and you'll quite probably get in, regardless of whether you win or lose the actual debate

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

asianaussie are you trying to reject an all american football star from being accepted into the DH?

 

[Okuser]

hahaha it stands for national forensic league

And yea, you're right. I have a very cut throat, DESTROY THE OPPONENT mentality that is inherent to the activity and this isn't necessarily the place for that. But, I WILL be able to add quality discussion to the DH and yall don't have to worry about me trying to shut down other peoples opinions in a winner/loser fashion. I'm very flexible and thrive on criticism so no worries.

 

[asianaussie]

i have no doubt good competitive debaters can also be excellent discussants, especially in relation to topics they have personal interest in

exploring points from the opponents position and taking softer stances to open up paths of discussion is something any good debater should be able to do naturally (not very applicable in competition, of course, unless you're setting up your opponent to be shut down even worse by the next speaker), so you'll probably be fine...

 

[Dre89]

Debating about debating.

Metadebating.

 

[Okuser]

So what happens now? lol

 

[Orboknown]

they basically said go debate more in the PGs, then we'll get back to you.

 

[GwJ]

Meta

Get it away from me

 

[Aesir]

Debating about debating.

Metadebating.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3ojlno/

 

[Aesir]

So what happens now? lol

Just pick a topic and debate me, maybe I'll get back to you. Just pick something, if you can beat my trollin you get in.

I have no authority to say otherwise but **** it.

my browser is better than mcfox's (jesus christ this is how long i've been here, I don't even think this is a rule anymore? LOL)

 

[Dre89]

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3ojlno/

I was expecting an X-zibit (or however you spell his name) meme.

I feel stupid because I don't get the punchline though....

 

[Aesir]

C'mon inception!

 

[Okuser]

Just pick a topic and debate me, maybe I'll get back to you. Just pick something, if you can beat my trollin you get in.

Hmmmm I couldn't really think of anything good,

America has largely ignored the wishes of NATO for the past decade. Do you believe that we should engage in a prior and binding consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization over issues of foreign involvement, and why.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I agree.

*is a good debater and should be in the debate hall*

 

[Okuser]

I agree.

*is a good debater and should be in the debate hall*

What?

 

[GwJ]

It was supposed to be humorous -_-