Debate Championship V-6th & 7th Jan '07 - Page 2

[QUOTE=Evilgenius_S.S™] I disagree..!If someone steals for his god,his survival...then morally and ethically its wrong!! But it can only b right in his eyes only! He thinks its right,thats why he's doing it!Only God is there to provide food,shelter,basic things to everyone..then why not trust him?? Why follow the evil path?The reason is lack of ur belief in God! It means that your very own belief is weak...!!!Your are weak in your religion!Because at the end of the day,its only"U" who is answerable to "yourself"...

[/quote]

It is easy to praise God and wait for his mercy when you are well off.. When you have the basic food, shelter and clothing. What about a starving man? A man whom God has given nothing!! And when God does not look to give such a man anything he needs to help himself... God helps those who help themselves...😃 A hungry man knows no religion.. No faith... For him what is most important is SURVIVAL...

Edited by swordfishh - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: swordfishh

so god would help the one who kills others to achieve their desires? The starving man, steals another's food, and feasts upon it, leaving the other without food, probably forcing them to the same, causing theft to happen endlessly...

Originally posted by: ash_sabihey

IF the monarchy or the governement is being unfair to its citizens,then its the right of every citizen to fight and achieve democracy throught right means.

why do you suppose the goverment is doing this? It is doing this achieve its' goals, but in the proccess, hurting others...
Going to any limit to achieve it's goals....

Edited by SmarterDesiKid - 17 years ago

Why don't the ends justify the means? Cuz they don't...
People want to be happy, but can they be happy cuz the reason of their happiness is bad? Thinking they've done something bad to be happy?
This wouldn't be a goal that is achieved, but ones Greediness.
If someone does something bad, obviously it hurts someone else, and it always does.
Cheating on a test. While you get the good grades for no effort, it'll be unfair for someone else, who study and work hard for their grades. Copying something from the internet to get good grades. then what would be the point of "COPYRIGHT" materials?
If you steal money, to buy what you want, you are taking away someone else's right to that money.
Increasing taxes to fix natoin problems. Although it helps the nation, but who knows? That tax money could've been someone's money to pay hospital fees for opperation. They could've died if operatoin didn't occur. If this is so, what's the need of improvement if someone can't enjoy it? Sum1 else will suffer right?
Let's say to save someones life, by doing something wrong. I already explained, whatever wrong ou do, someone else will suffer. So saving someones life through wrong, will make sum1 else suffer.

"It has become taboo in this country to attribute anything negative to religion. Most likely this is because it's quite uncomfortable to have one's own religious beliefs challenged. Our society collectively helps maintain each other's comfort by agreeing not to pointing out the flaws of each other's beliefs. But in so doing, we've crippled serious debate on many issues. These issues are now coming back to haunt us in spades.

Take the Terri Schiavo case. There must be a dozen different angles being reported. There's the right to life angle, the disabled rights angle, the marriage and family rights angle. There's the precedent being set by passing a law that overrules the judicial system. But it's rare to find a serious and open discussion of the impact being made on this case by religious beliefs.

To be sure, "right to life" and "sanctity of life" are both code phrases that mean religion to most people. But at best, it is a disingenuous way to argue a point. By being unwilling to name religion as the source of their politics, politicians are steering clear of arguments about the wall of separation while simultaneously maintaining the facade that religion is always a force for good but never detrimental. Should any negative publicity come about from a religious policy advocated through the use of a code phrase such as "culture of life," their religion itself escapes without tarnish." [ http://greycoloredglasses.blogspot.com/2005/03/end-does-not- justify-means.html ]

obviously not opening statement..^^^ are views on Debate.

Edited by SmarterDesiKid - 17 years ago

nvmd

Edited by SmarterDesiKid - 17 years ago

More reasons...questions actually. Doing something bad for you happiness...

1. If you were to kill 50 unknown people to save a 100, would you? Let's say the 100 would give you a million dollars each...would you then?

2. If you had to go against your beliefs, and traditions to achieve your goals...would you?

3. Would you damage your health, smoke, drugs, to get into a popular group of people?

Point is all clear now. So doing something bad for your needs is not the right way to do it, so the Ends don't justify the means.

Edited by SmarterDesiKid - 17 years ago

I would like to apoligise about the opening statment thing. I had not realized that in the rules. i sincerely apoligise, if you woul dlike please consider those to be my rebuttal and not an opening statemnt as it did adress a lot of issues rasied by the first debsator for the against team.

I see all the contestants are citing examples of of wrong deeds being justfied by wrong means. I would like to reiterate from my first post.
When we speak of the end we always consider it to be a conclusion which is for the betterment of society. This brings us to the heart of the matter. Since a bad end is one that we are not morally justified in seeking, we are not morally justified in taking any steps whatsoever toward its accomplishment.   For example a person's purpose, the end may be something like earning a lot of money. With such an end in view, certain immoral means will help achieve that faster. While the person would be right, from the point of view of expediency and efficiency, they are not right morally in taking these steps as a means to the end. And thus he is not morally justified in employing such means. What I am trying to say is no means can be justified to be right by a bad end or rather a morally corrupt end.

I would like to re-iterate, how is some one making a lot of money or getting the guy the want a morally justified end or s the person going after such a goal justified.

Another example used was that of the partition, I would like to ask my dear friend does she truly believe that separating a previously united country just on basis of religion a justified, correct end. Uprooting millions of people from land they have lived on for generations a good end that we should even think of justifying?

An observer in a particular time and place, depending on his/her outlook, based on a variety of things such as culture, religion, background, might call something good that another observer in a particular time and place would call evil. Many people in other times and places thought slavery, for example, acceptable, even good; while many (though certainly not all) today view it as a great evil.

Therefore we cannot pass sweeping statements saying means to achieve something are just or unjust as we can never really view things as morally wrong until it is placed in context.   tHere is never anything which is concretely right or wrong.

Originally posted by: shikara

Therefore we cannot pass sweeping statements saying means to achieve something are just or unjust as we can never really view things as morally wrong until it is placed in context.   tHere is never anything which is concretely right or wrong.

So in a way, you're saying that this Debate has no use?
We can't judge if what we did is right or wrong in order to achieve our goals?

So in a way, you're saying that this Debate has no use?
We can't judge if what we did is right or wrong in order to achieve our goals?

No I am not saying that.  what I am saying is that judging whether an end is just or moral or not is a subjective thing.  Therefore for us to judge an act is dffcult.  What I am saying is if we deem the outcome to be immoral than it doesnt matter what the means taken to acive it as you cant justify an immoral means.  But if the end is moral that definately the end justifies the means.  The topic for debate is if the end justifies the means and my opinion is if the end is on that we can live with and think is morally justified then yes it does.

Originally posted by: SmarterDesiKid

More reasons...questions actually. Doing something bad for you happiness...

1. If you were to kill 50 unknown people to save a 100, would you? Let's say the 100 would give you a million dollars each...would you then?

2. If you had to go against your beliefs, and traditions to achieve your goals...would you?

3. Would you damage your health, smoke, drugs, to get into a popular group of people?

Point is all clear now. So doing something bad for your needs is not the right way to do it, so the Ends don't justify the means.

Well,as far as your questions are concerned,I have answer to them all and one thing common "ends and means".

Ans(1).Well,there are people in this world who would dare to do it,because they are earning money through this.I think you are looking at the extreme side and ends are justifying the means here.

Ans(2).I believe that a man CAN achieve his goals going beyond his values and norms.Goals and traditions are 2 different things and if you are ambitious it doesnot mean you'll use wrong ways to achieve your destination.

Ans(3).Just because to want to enter a group,you should start smoking and become a wrong doer.There are several other ways as well;for instance,you may invite the gang to group studies or be nicer with them.As the proverb goes,"It doesnot matter how bully behaves with you,what matters is that how YOU behaves with the bully".

Lastly,I'd like to say that please make your concept clear that it is not necessary that in every case you have to do the wrong things to get to the ends.If  you have faith in yourself,you'll be original and true.😊