Individuals vs. Common Good Options

[*Kathleen*]

Another one of my past debate topics.

Resolved: As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests.

I haven't completely chosen a side for this just yet. Even if you do help the community, for example, contributing to stopping a flood, you are still helping yourself for survival. I think I just decided to take the individual side on this. Sometimes if you take everyone into consideration, you get off track, or get pulled down. Haha I hope no one thinks I'm selfish for saying this, though.

[Spirited Away]

Well, to be able to help out other people, you need to be able to help yourself first. You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions, before taking on responsibility for others.

Individuality is important because a society (or the common good) cannot exist without individuals who make up this society.

[*Kathleen*]

Haha this is why I love you, uninspiredfae.

[ComradeRed]

'We will bury you!'


These words of Nikita Khrushchev compells me to affirm the resolution. I will uphold the value premise of WORLD DOMINATION, supported by the criterion of the GLORY OF THE SOVIET UNION. The glory of the Soviet Union will be able to achieve world domination because it is the will of the people.


Contention I: The will of the people demands that individuals do what is best for the common good


Because the people want us to rule the world, then everyone should do what the people say. The Union is glorious because it is full of people who are willing to die for the common good, as opposed to the selfish American infidel capitalist pig-bastards. Twenty million true Soviet patriots died to purge Europe of the fascist, compared to only half a million Americans. When the Soviet armies marched through towns, entire nations trembled before it. But the Americans elicited no such response. Thus, glory is only achieved when people die for their country, and the common good, as defined by his highness, the premier Nikita Khrushchev.


Contention II: Aff achieves world domination


If everyone only valued his own interests, how could a nation conquer the world? Logically, people would have to also be patriotic and support their nation's common good in order to achieve world domination. No selfish society ever ruled the world, because if you look at the Ancient Romans, they only managed to rule much of the world because their soldiers were willing to kill people for the greatness of Caesar, whereas those individualist barbarians all got overrun. It's the same deal in the modern age. All those millions of corpses allowed the Soviet Union to become the undisputed ruler of Eastern Europe whereas the greedy Americans still rely on old things like alliances to rule Western Europe. If all of our two hundred million people united together under the red banner and surged forth with the strength of all the billions of workers of the world, we would rule the world.


Contention III: We will bury you!


Even if you negate, that will not stop the grand army of the Union from ravaging your lands and liberating your workers. When Churchill told Stalin that the Pope was opposing his plans, Stalin asked, 'The Pope? How many divisions does he have?' That's because we have the divisions, so we will overrun Europe and the world! Then you will be FORCED to value the common good of the working class! For the Union and the workers of the world!


Because only by valuing the common good can we achieve my value of world domination, individuals must do that because the working class has a divine right to rule the world in a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[*Kathleen*]

Most of these people don't do lincoln-douglas, Minda. They most likely have no idea what you're talking about. Besides, I did not say to post your case here.

[Spirited Away]

'We will bury you!'

That's all well and good for the individuals to act for the sake of society. But how realistic is that?

What we should do, ought to do, and are doing are three different ideas.

Anyway, on to the senerios:

Take a music band praticing in a garage for an example. If everyone decides that he/she ought to play and sing in sync and harmonize, then we do not have any problem because everyone is aware that they should work towards the common good (ie, getting a gig in a hot bar). But let say, there are two singers and they both decide that they be the lead singer and the other a backup singer, and both try to outshine one another, they'd have a hard time trying harmonizing.

Argh, my point is, greed and other human flaws cause us to act for our individual good first. Without compromising the individual benefits, people would never agree to work together.

A person will only act for the common good if he knows he will receive some benefit for himself, not so much because of greed, but because of human instinct.