Rebuttal to Danny s AC 1.) My opponent assumes that ever everyone has equal human worth.

He just claims it, there is not warrant or justification. 2.) Just because humans have equal human worth, it doesn t show WHY they are morally obligated to help. He has no warrant. 3.) The affirmative needs to prove the resolution true AND explain how he is going to implement it. It doesn t make any sense to just prove that there is a moral obligation for morality is shown through actions, and if there is no way to actually implement it, it is unfair for the negative. The affirmative could have a moral mind, and still prove that there is a moral obligation. Implementations of these thoughts need to be proved. 4.) He doesn t specify which specific groups or individuals have this obligation. This shows how the individuals are general and that he needs to prove why universal obligation is necessary. 5.) There are different levels of people in need. This is saying that people who are less in need but are still in need like people in Syria have an obligation to help those who are more in need like the people in Africa. There is no specification, so the affirmative needs to prove why all are morally obligated to assist people in need. one who lacks basic means of sustenance is too vague. 6.) TURN: If my opponent is helping certain people especially because of their disadvantages, he is setting different levels of hierarchy of who is more poor or not. This goes against his own standard of syllogism. 7.) Before my opponent makes any arguments about his case, he needs to firmly prove that there is such thing as a universal morality. Since his vague definition doesn t specify which group, he is going need to prove that there is one morality that everyone agrees to. 8.) He states that if the negative doesn t have equal human worth, then he automatically wins. He has no warrants against why that is true. This is unfair for the negative because I don t specifically have to function under his standard. If he does that, then I can simply say that if he doesn t follow my standard, he is going to lose. Also the negative merely needs to disprove the resolution, disprove the resolution by agreeing with the affirmative. 9.) The Loobuyck card is not specific of what ought to be done and what ought to be done. It merely states that humans need to follow a set of rules. Reject it. He has no warrant. This again shows the vagueness of the card. This card does nothing to strengthen his argument. The card doesn t prove that morality exists. It just assumes that everyone uses it. 10.) TURN: Since morality is too vague and the Loobuyck card doesn t specify what ought to done or not to be done to the humans , it concludes to the fact that there any moral point of view can be view through this. Some moral view can say that humans should be disciplined in certain ways to learn their lessons. If that certain discipline disrespects the human, then it goes against his morality 11.) TURN: He is disregarding the voice of the people who do not have the equal human worth , Such as the people who are not capable of helping

Rebuttal to Danny s AC those in need. He is disrespecting the minorities, and thus hurting his own standard of morality. 12.) TURN:For his third justification, he says that humans were all born equally with rational and intellect that must be respected. But the affirmative creates a social hierarchy, which actually shows that humans don t have equal rights. Even though they have equal worth, the affirmative is worsening it by lowering their human worth, for they have no use. 13.) What says that equal worth will 100% guarantee rationality and intellects? The Arneson card doesn t prove that they should look towards equal worth, but rather argues why they shouldn t look towards superiority. This means that he can disprove other things, yet not proving that we should use equal worth. 14.) TURN: even if they do have deserve that such opportunities are needed, it doesn t mean that they will actually achieve it. This only worsens, as the affirmative only masks this problem by materials, as their materialism increases, which will be bad when it comes to time where they cant help. 15.) Human worth cannot be measured unless you prove that morality actually exist. The fifth justification cannot stand, as he has yet to prove morality is true, and that it is the reason why they are so obligated 16.) The negative doesn t need to accept the ethical standards that assume that all humans have equal worth. There are many ways of negating, and the affirmative cannot bind the negative to prove them wrong with these ethics, for that is unfair. 17.) Life should be valued but not because it is necessarily moral, but through the what one thinks is good and bad, not through the ought system. Look to the OFF 1 case. 18.) TURN:The affirmative doesn t specify to what extent a person is morally obligated to help. An Iraqi person may be poor, and in need, but an African is even poorer. He doesn t specify if the Iraqi person has an obligation. Because there is no boundary, the Iraqi person has to give things, hurting them. This is contradictory. 19.) TURN: The affirmative says that all his arguments will lead to equal human worth and right, but this is false. If we are obligated to help, then there is a distinction between the people who can help and who cant help. This sets a pyramid of different people. This only strengthens the argument that they will not have the same human worth. 20.) Theory. The affirmative is making me link into his standard and that is not fair. There are other ways of proving the resolution false or true, and cannot bind me into one way of binding it. 21.) In order for the affirmative to reach his impact of human worth, you need first prove that there is a moral concept, and prove that there a universal view of one morality. If he doesn t prove this, he cant prove the resolution true for it states morally obligated . This is an apriori.

Rebuttal to Danny s AC 22.) Individuals don t actually have a moral obligation, but is effected through self-interest. This shows how there is no moral concept, and that they don t need morality. 23.) TURN: Morality is actually bad for the humans. It restricts the happiness of the human beings. And rather restricts them from free action. This is immoral, which is going against his own value. 24.) Individuals don t have an obligation but the government does. Look at the keegan card. It shows how they both have different obligations and that the obligation to help others is the job of the government. 25.) TURN: preaching morality is cruel to the unfortunate. This shows how that even if there is a subtle morality, we cannot use this as a standard to measure for it is bad for the people.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1881, Daybreak, #30 Here is a morality, which rests entirely on the drive to distinction do not think too highly of it! For what kind of a drive is that and what thought lies behind it? We want to make the sight of us painful to another and to awaken in him the feeling of envy and of his own impotence and degradation; by dropping on to his tongue a drop of our honey, and while doing him this supposed favor looking him keenly and mockingly in the eyes, we want to make him savor the bitterness of fate. This person has become humble and is now perfect in his humility seek for those whom he has for long wished to torture with it! you will find them soon enough! ... The chastity of the nun: with what punitive eyes it looks into the faces of women who live otherwise! 26.) TURN: Unless the affirmative explains and proves his burden of moral obligation, he ignores the fact that morality is subjective. Since the subjectivity of this concept, we cannot look to it as there is no universal obligation, that the aff has yet to prove. 27.) TURN: morality deludes us into rejecting reality. Even if there is morality, we cannot use it for the standard. Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1888, Gotzen-Dammerung The characteristics which have been assigned to the real being of things are the characteristics of non-being, of nothingness the real world has been constructed out of the contradiction to the actual world: an apparent world indeed, in so far as it is no more than a moral-opticalillusion. 28.) TURN: morality actually weakens humans Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1888, Gotzen-Dammerung In all ages one has wanted to improve men: this above all is what morality has meant. But one word can conceal the most divergent tendencies. Both the taming of the beast man and the breeding of a certain species of man has been called improvement : only these zoological termini express realities realities, to be sure, of which the typical improver , the priest, knows nothing wants to know nothing.... To call the taming of an animal its improvement is in our ears almost a joke. Whoever knows what goes on in menageries is doubtful whether the beasts in them are improved . They are weakened, they are made less harmful,theybecome sickly beasts through the depressive emotion of fear, through pain, through injuries, through hunger. It is no different with the tamed human being whom the priest has improved , for example the Teutons. 29.)the negative cannot win unless the negative proves that there is a universal obligation. If he doesn t prove this, then his definitions are contradictory

Rebuttal to Danny s AC
30.) Observation 1: Because the resolution questions the existence of the moral obligation,

the aff has to prove that there is a moral obligation. Second they have to prove WHY they are MORALLY obligated to do so. In addition they need to explain the existence of the moral concept since if morality does not exist then it is impossible to have moral obligation. Therefore, if the concept of the morality falls apart, then you automatically negate since there is 2no way to assure that there is MORAL obligation. Observation 2: Since the resolution did not specify which group or individuals are morally obligated to assist, the resolution concludes that there has to be anunivsersal obligation to help others. It is necessary for the AC to justify why assisting others is an universal obligation. The affirmative advocates the existence of morality. However, we cannot agree since moral disagreement is widespread. Since it is impossible to determine where morality and when it was brought up, we cannot not ensure that such notion exists. David Copp1990 WRITES (Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, Davis) http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0ll3t356mn73mv0/fulltext.pdf moral standards a n d s t r i v e t o conform to them, itacknowledgesas well that p e o p l e typically believe that the s t a n d a r d s t h e y s u b s c r i b e t o a r e j u s t i f i e d , c r e d i b l e or warranted. There are perhaps unaccountably many imaginable moral: standards, most of which no 0ne is likely ever to subscribe to. It is denied that any moral standard has ANY genuine credibility and she is not swayed from her.She thinks that no moral standard has any adequate and appropriate warrant , grounding, certification or justification. THEREFORE, it can be said that such vague concept of morality is impossible to become universal. The concept of morality itself is based on the self-thought of other people in order to determine certain actions right or wrong. There are no specific rules of conducts or anyone who are in charge of making moral rules; it is absolutely impossible for people to simply decide rather the action is true or false. It is impossible to see the true moral status of anything. David Copp 21990 There is nox t e m a lstandpoint from which to justify morality and it is inappropriate to suppose we m u s thave one in order to justify our moral benefits. No moral belief is guaranteed against challenge, but any moral belief that is not at issue in a given context can be used in justifying beliefs that are at issue. Any justification of a moral conviction can only be internal to morality. THEREFORE, morality cannot be justified, since the actual justification of the morality can only come from the moral concept. Since moral concept cannot be justified, there is no way to prove that such notions exist.

Rebuttal to Danny s AC ALSO, morality cannot be true because they resemble emotion. Such expressions are kinds of things that cannot be either true or false. Then substantive moral beliefs also cannot be determined whether it is true or false. THEREFORE, if it is impossible to justify morality, universal morality cannot exist in the AC. Observation 3: Even if there is morality, you still negate for two reasons. 1. The only morality that exists is dependent on individuals. And since individuals have different views, it is impossible to become a universal obligation. Second, Morality actually harms, and takes away the happiness of humans.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1881, Daybreak, p.63

the individual is seeking happiness, one ought not to tender him any prescriptions as to the path to happiness:for individual happiness springs from ones own unknown laws, and prescriptions from without can only obstruct and hinder it.- The prescriptions called moral arein truthdirected against individuals andare in no way aimed at promoting their happiness. They havejust aslittle to do with the happiness and welfare of mankind - a phrase to which it is in any case impossible to attach any distinct concepts, let alone employ them as guiding stars on the dark ocean of moral aspirations.
Insofar as