I have am in UIL debate, and this is the topic. I'm way out of my comfort zone this year because this topic is SO philosophical. I'm working on building my cases and preparing myself for rebuttals- anybody have any suggestions?
2007-01-12 06:56:48 · 6 answers · asked by whoops! 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Historically, Kennedy paraphrased it in when he said "Ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
Possible rebuttals that you will encounter are:
1. If society is wrong, the individual must prevail (i.e. Germans living in Nazi Germany) regardless of benefit to the "bad" society.
2. Religious choice - the individual should pursue their own needs, not the choice of a society's religion, regardless of potential societal benefit
3. This is based on the assumption that the whole (society) is greater than the sum of the parts (individuals). This might not be true.
4. The old fashion "greed is good" speech, were it can be argued that under certain circumstances, individual "greed" serves beneficial purposes (quantum leaps in discovery, destruction of "weak" economic models, venture capital). Most inventors did not do so to benefit society, they did it to benefit themselves financially.
If I think of more, I'll add them.
2007-01-12 07:46:48 · answer #1 · answered by freebird 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. What comes around goes around. In a fair and just society the name of the game is, "Share and share alike". The idea is for each individual to contribute to 'the societal trust fund'. In return, society as an entity, should administer to the needs and wants of its people. After all, they paid for it.
Individuals who contribute more then the rest will reap greater dividends which translate into power, prestige, and wealth. By contrast, an individual who does not contribute to a society is by definition not a member of said society and not due any considerations.
So these 'non-members' are inducted into the society to become contributing individuals and, thus, making the society stronger.
And that's the way it's supposed to work.
But nothing is perfect.
2007-01-12 08:56:33 · answer #2 · answered by dudezoid 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A society cannot function properly without a contribution from the majority on individuals residing therein. As our obligation to society is fulfilled, our own needs are met in turn. Well, ideally anyway...
2007-01-12 08:13:30 · answer #3 · answered by Diesel Weasel 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This exact question was asked today.
We have no obligation to society and society has none to us. It's all a human invention that has no fundamental meaning.
2007-01-12 07:01:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
if every individual is to completely fulfill his/her obligation to society, then society will completely fulfill its obligation. however, since most people do not fulfill their obligation to society- society cannot fulfill its obligation to us since we are society. in turn we are therefore not fulfilling our obligations to ourselves and it is both the society and the individual who are cheated.
2007-01-12 11:26:59 · answer #5 · answered by orange blossom honey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hey, i'm an LDer also. i'm writing my neg case for a tourney tomorrow morning and i have NO CLUE what to put for my value and crit. whad you put? also are you online right now?
2007-01-12 13:15:00 · answer #6 · answered by Ashley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋