moral high ground notions

[RACE --- <race@midusa.net>]

most of the evidence which i've heard concerning these "moral high
ground" peaks of thought over the years have been one or another
disguised form of the traditional don't use wrong means for right ends. 
don't use people for economics etc. etc. etc.

it seems that the affirmatives are pulling quite a hoodwink by the
rebuttals come around with such evidence.  by the end of the debate, the
initial ethical claim has become and end and all the policy arguments in
the debate have become questions of means.  

take out a big flashlight and shine it towards the argument and it will
be easy to expose what they've done.  the initial ethical position is
scrutinize means questions not ends questions.  the latter is precisely
the reverse.

if the negatives make solvency and solvency turn arguments, or
counterplans with solvency deficit net benefits, then they have linked
turned the moral high ground position at the level of means analysis
which is where the foundation of the decision rule evidence usually
rests.

david rhaesa

"if you make a mountain out of a molehill - noone else can see the
mountain."

---

• Prev by Date: Topic activism = bribery? Not.
• Next by Date: Southeast Asia resolutions
• Prev by thread: Topic activism = bribery? Not.
• Next by thread: Southeast Asia resolutions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page