Lincoln-Douglas Debaters in the Playground

[IamL]

As I was feverishly working on my neg case for this month's resolution, it occurred to me that I should set up a place in the Playground where people can discuss the current resolution and critique/hone the finer points of fellow Playgrounders' value structures and arguments, as well as propose resolutions that should be put forth to the National Forensics League.

[Joran]

I did Lincoln-Douglas debating in high school, about 15 years ago. I remember two things:

1) One time the resolution was "Are economic sanctions moral?" I thought this was an odd question, because I was a foreign policy buff and I thought a better question was "Are economic sanctions effective?" Then again, maybe that was a better question for Model UN.

2) During my last debate, I decided I didn't care anymore, so I decided to completely reverse the premise. The resolution was "Should juveniles be prosecuted in the adult criminal system?" and I was the negative. The positive went with the normal thing about how some juveniles do heinous crimes and deserve adult punishment, expecting me to go with the juveniles aren't adults and deserve some leniency. I instead flipped it around and said, "I agree with everything you said. In fact I feel like juveniles deserve WORSE punishment. A bad apple spoils the bunch."

I got a high-five from the dude and his friends after the debate.

I guess a problem with this discussion is that it can lead to subjects that are not allowed on this board.

[IamL]

I did Lincoln-Douglas debating in high school, about 15 years ago. I remember two things:

1) One time the resolution was "Are economic sanctions moral?" I thought this was an odd question, because I was a foreign policy buff and I thought a better question was "Are economic sanctions effective?" Then again, maybe that was a better question for Model UN.

2) During my last debate, I decided I didn't care anymore, so I decided to completely reverse the premise. The resolution was "Should juveniles be prosecuted in the adult criminal system?" and I was the negative. The positive went with the normal thing about how some juveniles do heinous crimes and deserve adult punishment, expecting me to go with the juveniles aren't adults and deserve some leniency. I instead flipped it around and said, "I agree with everything you said. In fact I feel like juveniles deserve WORSE punishment. A bad apple spoils the bunch."

I got a high-five from the dude and his friends after the debate.

I guess a problem with this discussion is that it can lead to subjects that are not allowed on this board.

You just won the internet, Joran. Glorious.

There's a difference between political conversations and hypothetical ethical debate, which is why I decided to put it on here.

The current contention is this: "A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." My aff case looks like this:

Spoiler: text wall

Show

2014 September/October Aff

Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Value: Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Value Criterion: Preserving Life


Definitions (Oxford English)
Just: based on or behaving accordingly to what is morally right and fair
Presume: To assume; to take for granted; to presuppose; to anticipate, count upon, or expect
Consent: Agreement to or acquiescence in what another proposes or desires; compliance, concurrence, permission.
Organ Procurement (UK Healthcare): The removal or retrieval of organs and tissues for transplantation.

Contention 1: Presuming consent allows more lives to be saved and therefore preserves life and fulfills the Categorical Imperative.

Contention 2: Presuming consent allows for free choice, and thus, free will, and therefore fulfills the Categorical Imperative.

Contention 3: Refusing to donate organs is immoral; therefore, a just society ought to seek to minimize it.


On the Categorical Imperative:
In the late 1700s, philosopher Immanuel Kant sought to find a rational, logical imperative (a series of obligations) by which people could make moral decisions. He devised four different ways to state his philosophy, which he deemed the four formulations of his Categorical Imperative: the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature ("Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature”), the Humanity Formula, ("Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end”), the Autonomy Formula, (“So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims”), and the Kingdom of Ends formula (“"So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.") If an action violates the formulations, it is deemed immoral; if it fulfills them, it is deemed moral. Through this system, one can devise a list of duties, maxims such as “Do not kill,” or “Cultivate your talents.” Kant distinguished between perfect and imperfect duties, which I will address later.

Contention 1: Presuming consent allows more lives to be saved and therefore preserves life and fulfills the Categorical Imperative

There can be no doubt that, if more organs are available for transplantation, more lives will be preserved. Timely medical aid saves lives. According to the national organ donor database, an average of 18 Americans die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs. That’s an average of 6,570 lives per year. More Americans die every year waiting for medical transplants than have ever died of the Ebola virus. Clearly, increasing the pool of organs available for donation will preserve life.
Thus, presuming consent preserves life and, therefore, fulfills the Categorical Imperative because the Categorical Imperative always seeks to fulfill perfect duties, duties that provide no logical contradiction or immorality when viewed through the Imperative. The act of preserving a single life is a perfect duty because if it were to become universal law, society would definitely benefit and no logical contradiction would appear. In addition, the Categorical Imperative always seeks to fulfill imperfect duties, duties that can never be fully complete but should always be sought, but are held to the same test as perfect duties. The duty of preserving lives is an imperfect duty; there will never be a point in which society is finished preserving lives, but it maximizes societal benefit to preserve as many lives as we can. Thus, preserving a life is a perfect duty, and preserving lives is an imperfect duty; therefore, preserving life fulfills the Categorical Imperative. Because preserving life fulfills the Categorical Imperative, and presuming consent for organ procurement from the deceased preserves life, presuming consent fulfills the Categorical Imperative and therefore is morally just.

Contention 2: Presuming consent allows for free choice, and thus, free will, and therefore fulfills the Categorical Imperative.

The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is the moral requirement to fulfill perfect and imperfect duties. The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is to never treat humans as ends to a means, as utilitarianism seeks to do, but instead to treat each human as an end themselves. Thus, one must never stifle free will.
The important thing to note in this resolution is that it still allows for free will. Let me remind you again that the definition of “presume” is to “assume” or to “presuppose,” not to force or demand. If one wishes, one may opt out of organ donation after death. People still have the opportunity to opt out. People still have free will.
Thus, presuming consent fulfills the categorical imperative by allowing for free will.

Contention 3: Refusing to donate organs is immoral; therefore, a just society ought to seek to minimize it.
Whilst preserving life fulfills the categorical imperative, as I have demonstrated previously, refusal to donate organs violates the Categorical Imperative and is therefore immoral. It violates the Categorical Imperative because were the maxim of refusing to donate to be universalized, there would be no organs to transplant, and many lives would be lost. There exists an immorality and logical contradiction in those who believe they can be organ takers without being organ donors. Since refusal to donate organs violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it is immoral. Thus, a just society ought to seek to minimize the number of non-donors in it, something that can be achieved through informed consent.

To summarize:
Presuming consent allows more lives to be saved and therefore preserves life and fulfills the Categorical Imperative. Presuming consent allows for free choice, and thus, free will, and therefore fulfills the Categorical Imperative. Therefore, a morally just society would presume consent for organ donation from the deceased. Finally, refusing to donate is immoral; therefore, a just society ought to seek to minimize it and thus presume consent. It is for these reasons that I urge you to submit an affirmative ballot. I stand ready for cross-ex.

My neg case looks like this:

Spoiler: text wall #2

Show

Ben Eneman September/October 2014 Neg

Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Value: Individualism
Criterion: Preserving Informed Consent

Definitions (Oxford English Dictionary): (don’t read unless point of clash)
Just: based on or behaving accordingly to what is morally right and fair
Presume: to take for granted; to presuppose; to count upon.
Consent: Agreement to or acquiescence in what another proposes or desires; compliance, concurrence, permission.
Organ Procurement (UK Healthcare): The removal or retrieval of organs and tissues for transplantation.

Contention One: Presuming consent stifles individualism by denying informed consent.

Contention Two: Presuming consent for organ procurement from the deceased grossly violates the first tenet of the Nuremberg Code, a widely regarded code of medical ethics

Contention One: Presuming consent stifles Individualism by denying informed consent.
The cornerstone of medical ethics is informed consent. It is only logical; if informed consent was deemed unnecessary, medical professionals could stamp all over the rights of individuals to free will and free choice, illustrated by atrocities such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, which occurred before informed consent became part of the law of medical ethics. Informed consent is also an integral part of individualism; the main tenet of individualism is freedom of choice. Informed consent requires both that one has enough information to make an informed decision, and makes an affirmative decision. If the resolution were affirmed, informed consent would be discarded because informed consent requires specific, educated affirmation. It requires that people who agree to have a procedure on them know about all of the effects that procedure will have. Knowledge is necessary. If you presume consent, people who are not informed and do not submit a decision will undergo organ procurement after death. This would violate the concept of informed consent. Therefore, to affirm the resolution would be to violate informed consent and, by extension, the value of individualism.

Contention Two: Presuming consent for organ procurement from the deceased grossly violates the first tenet of the Nuremberg Code, a widely regarded code of medical ethics.
In 1945, a monumental series of trials were held; they considered the actions of Nazi doctors during World War II. These trials, deemed the Nuremberg Trials for the city they were held in, changed the field of medical ethics forever. During the trials, a code of ethics called the Nuremberg Code was established, and though it didn’t enter law until a few decades later, it has become an integral part of the field of medical ethics. The first part of the code embodies the value of individualism. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” it reads. It then elaborates, saying that people taking part of trials, procedures, or experiments must have “legal capacity to give consent,” must be able to exercise “free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” It also stresses the importance of making an “affirmative decision.” These two parts of the code are violated by the government presuming consent. Firstly, to presume (even if not to force) consent for organ procurement from the deceased would constitute a form of duress or overreaching, or an ulterior form of constraint or coercion. Those four things are explicitly barred from use in the Nuremberg Code, so affirming the contention violates it in that respect. The second violation is that the code requires an “affirmative decision” to take part in a procedure or experiment, whilst presuming consent requires an affirmative decision to not take part in a transplantation procedure. It is clear from these examples that affirming the resolution would be grossly violating the Nuremberg Code, and, as I have demonstrated, the first tenet of the Code is one that exactly replicates an individualist philosophy. Therefore, Individualism requires that the resolution be negated.


To Summarize:
Firstly, affirming the resolution would mean violating the concept of informed consent, and thus stifle individualism. Secondly, affirming the resolution would grossly violate the first part of the Nuremberg Code, and therefore, violates individualism.

Address the value clash.















Notes:
Def. of Individualism: the philosophy that individuals should have 
freedom of choice and freedom to make decisions that are subject only to the reciprocal obligation to respect the 
rights of others. This proposes that rights should not be 
restricted by government because self-interest is the
 proper goal of all human actions, and that the real security of every nation lies in its respect for individual rights, and that democracy would be meaningless and unworkable without guarantees for individualism.

Nuremberg Code:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Any critiques/potential rebuttals I should look out for?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: We gave this a tiny bit of room, but it's apparent this can't be discussed within the Forum Rules given the underlying topics and substance of the arguments involved. Real world religion and politics are Inappropriate Topics on this forum and should be given a wide berth.