A2-Critique of Morality as a Value

1 Reject my opponent because she/he is just claiming that her/his method is preferable to mine.
This isnt true because the best way is entirely subjective.
In the end if debate isnt fun then people wont join it and do debate. This preempts ANY and ALL arguments that my
opponent makes about her/his method being preferable to mine. I like my way, she/he likes her way, and there is
absolutely no reason for either of us to adopt the others way of debating. We should each do whichever style and
format we prefer because this will make debate as a whole better.
Again, debate being enjoyable for the debaters is a prerequisite for any other voting issue such as education or fairness.
You can vote down my opponent simply because she/he tries to force her/his version on me. This destroys all access to
the things that make debate worth doing.

2 My opponent just assumes that her/his definition of a value is superior to mine.

This links her/him into my first argument against my opponents k. She/he is destroying what makes debate enjoyable,
and thus has no access to any reason for you to vote for her/him because if debate isnt enjoyable no one will
participate and thus the education value is lost.

3 My opponents argument cant even be true.

When she/he says tautological, and logically impossible, in comparison to my use of morality as a value you can see that
she/he is just trying to use large words to sound like she/he knows what she/he is talking about. Tautology as defined
by Apple Dictionary: Logic a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. AND by Princeton as
(tautology) (logic) a statement that is necessarily true;". AND by CSA: (Tautologies) Statements that are necessarily
true, either because they are logical or mathematical in nature, or because they are truisms and true by definition.
AND by the University of Texas: (tautology) a logical formula that is always true.
At this point she/he is just attempting to do the equivalent of blind me. Unfortunately for my opponent, I understand
the word tautology and can expose how she/he is failing to prove anything with this argument. My opponent is wasting
everyones time by using this argument.

4 My opponents entire argument has a holier than thou sound to it.

My opponent just subjected me to 7 minutes of a demeaning attack, not based on refuting my arguments, but based on
making me feeling bad about the way I debate. My opponent has failed to actually refute my arguments and instead has
devolved to a personal attack. If its not entirely self-evident why this is bad for debate: A I am not having fun. If I
dont have fun then I might quit, and if my opponent goes on to use this against others they may quit as well. Cross
apply the argument from my first argument that enjoying debate is key to all other voters. B Debate is a place to come
to be accepted. Like any other organization we should accept everyone. Debate depends on this acceptance in a special
way because it is an entirely voluntary activity. If people dont feel welcome theyll leave and this makes debate worse
off.

5 My opponents argument is simply rude. A vote for me is a vote for kindness and acceptance.
My opponent has the right to debate according to the dictates of her/his own conscience, and allow all the same
privilege, let her/him debate how, where, or what they may. I only ask that my opponent aloe me the same right. Cross
apply my debate depends on the activity being fun argument AND my debate depends on acceptance and kindness
arguments.

6 My opponents argument about valuing the opposite of morality is wrong. It would preclude
almost every possible value.
Carrying my opponents argument to its logical conclusion means that we also cant value justice, because it would be
wrong to value its opposite of injustice. We cant value societal welfare because its impossible to value societal harm or
degradation. Most importantly, here my opponent bites her/his own argument by giving the example of utilitarianism.
We cant even value utilitarianism because we cant value its opposite, which would be the minimization of good and
generally promoting pain. Any value you put through her/his own test proves impossible to value. Thus her/his method
is intrinsically flawed.

7 To some extent the debaters should show that their side is morally preferable.
This is implied through the resolutions use of the word ought. Ought implies morality, and thus the resolution becomes
a moral question. It simply saves time to value morality, and then define morality through my criterion. It works, and is
a much clearer method than my opponents. BUT, this is all up for debate. If my opponent doesnt want to debate that
way she/he doesnt have to. I am simply offering my interpretation of the resolution and it is up to my opponent to
refute it in anyway she/he thinks is best.

8 I clearly define what is good and thus what is moral.

Morality isnt an empty shell of an idea because it is clearly defined through my criterion. She/he links into her/his own
argument against valuing morality, and if you believe the tautological argument that one too, because valuing
something else that is good according to some philosophy is the same as valuing morality for that philosophy. Thus
her/his own argument doesnt actually do anything differently from what Im suggesting. A criterion is literally a checklist that you use to determine if something passes a test, and thus it CAN be used to define morality.

9 I provide warrants for my form of morality.

I clearly explain my type of morality, and provide the warrants for why it should be used. Her/his argument that I dont
is just an attempt to fool the judge.

10 My opponent forces everyone to debate her/his way.

My opponents argument will ruin LD debate. I enjoy my way and she/he enjoys her/his way. There is no reason to
prefer either one a priori to some argument. However my opponent only asserts that her/his style is preferable because
she/he likes it more. The NC was just 7 minutes of my opponents opinion without reasons to prefer. I clearly show that
my way allows for both my style of debate, and my opponents. This is the only way to allow debate to stay A
Accepting, which is key to debate being valuable as a whole. B Fun, which is key to why people do debate. C Kind, if
debaters arent kind then people will quit and the activity is worse off for it. D Education, if people quit, because the
activity isnt kind, or because theyre not accepted, the education possible from debate decreases because my opponent
is excluding different views.

11 You can drop my opponent simply because she/he was rude.

Cross apply the voters from 10.
Further, all my opponent is doing is asserting that her/his opinion on how debate should work is best. I clearly show
how my system of debate allows for my opponents preferences and my own. This allows for the best form of debate
because it is A Accepting, which is key to debate being valuable as a whole. AND its key to debate being enjoyable,
which in the end is the main reason most people do debate. B Fun, which is key to why people do debate. C Kind, if
debaters arent kind then people will quit and the activity is worse off for it. D Education, if people quit, because the
activity isnt kind, or because theyre not accepted, the education possible from debate decreases because my opponent
is excluding different views. AND you can vote against my opponent because she/he made this round all about their
own opinion rather than about issues that are valuable outside of this round. This ruins the value of debate.

12 My opponent calls utilitarianism as a value, but then says a value is an idea. Util isnt an idea,
but a collection of ideas, its a philosophy, a weighing mechanism.
You cant value util, only use it as a something to determine what has value. She/he accuses me of not understanding
the value structure, but this example of util reveals a lack of understanding of what a value really is so dont evaluate
any of the other arguments she/he makes about morality being a bad value when you dont even know if she/he knows
what she/he is talking about.

13 The logical negation point is absurd.

I can value life, but I cant value death. There are plenty of examples like this that I can provide. Justice injustice,
national security national insecurity. Again she/he exposes just how little she/he knows about the value structure and
how it functions, and this is another example of trying to sound intelligent but is really just grasping at what could be
good arguments but theyre not correctly developed.

14 Even if you dont buy that, I could value immorality death injustice if I correctly justified it.
There arent any rules against it, and there are plenty of philosophers who would justify it.
[Glaucon in Platos Republic, advocated for people to act unjustly in order to gain more power which he thought was
more important.]

15 A house of cards? Really? Besides being a really awful analogy, my opponent didnt listen to
my case and is just saying my arguments arent warranted but they are.
16 Even if you buy that my framework is bad you have to accept it because its the only option in
the round to use.
17 Even if you dont buy that she/he granted that I was advocating for common-sense morality,
thus you have a conceded type of morality you can use to evaluate the round.
Since Im the only one who has some kind of offensive arguments, you have to vote for me because Im the only one
with the remotest chance of fulfilling it.

18 The burden of the AFF is to prove the resolution generally true, and the NEGs is to prove the
resolution generally false.
Im the only one who makes arguments that are for/against the resolution so you have to vote for me.
This is directly in conflict with the burden she/he tries to set up. This one is preferable because: it is more fair since the
burden is essentially the same for both debaters, and because grants equal grounds for both debaters. Her/his burdens
were completely unwarranted so you HAVE to accept mine because you have no reason to prefer the other. Even if you
dont buy that, you have a very clear implied burden in my value-criterion framework.