Resolved: The collective good should be prioritized over the individual.

Hello Mal, I will get into my argument right away where I will be proving that the collective good should be prioritized over the individual.

Definitions:

Collective Good: A benefit/condition/outcome shared among the community members and gained through their participation, which furthers the well-being/functioning of the society for everyone as a whole.

Prioritized: given greater importance in cases of limited resources.

Individual: a single person, considered autonomous, with their own goals and ideals.

Contention 1:

Men without accountability and checks cause destruction.

Point 1 (Theory-based):

In the 1950s, through several mental experiments the study of Game Theory was popularized. One of these experiments was the Prisoner Dilemma. In this dilemma two men are in prison. They can either betray the other prisoner or not. If one betrays, the traitor only gets one year and the betrayed gets five years. If both betray they both get four years. If neither betray they both get two years. Clearly it is beneficial that the prisoner betrays, for they would get a lesser sentence. Therefore, when acting out of individual self-interest, either way, if the prisoner acts out of his self-interest to get a lesser sentence, then he either causes the other to get a larger sentence or he ends up with both of them getting longer sentences, thus harming the collective.

Point 2 (Literary based):

The corruption of the individual is something that authors and philosophers have also dealt with for centuries. I will give two examples, the first from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. In the novel Kurtz (an ivory trader) is left alone in the heart of Congo, with no one to answer to, he is by himself. With all variables contained, he is the experiment of what the nature of man is. Thus, we see his darkness come out. He does not engage in fruitful agriculture or leisure, rather he steals, kills, and destroys. This is seen in Kurtz's placing of impaled heads of tribal people on stakes in front of his hut. Man left to their own devices causes chaos.

My second example is in the works of Thomas Hobbes, where they argue that man exists at first in a State of Nature and in this state he is primal, and there is violence. This is seen when Hobbes writes: “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation… no commodious building… no knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. By nature, the state of nature is where individuals are individual in their purest form, so thus the evil prior explained must come from them.

Point 3 (Reality based):

One can also view this corrupted nature of man in real-life. We see this in the life of Frederick Douglas who writes in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas: “But, alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice,” This is about his master's wife, who as soon as she came to realize that actions were left up to her as an individual takes a violent course. Another example is the officers in The Gulag Archipelago, who once they see that they are broken off from the community and are individual powers they become violent butcherers.

Contention 2:

Men need a check/restraint on this individualism.

Point 1:

This one is fairly simple, and I will use a syllogism to show my point:

Men when unrestrained cause violence.

Violence is by nature evil.

Evil is a perversion of good, and perversion is by nature harmful.

What is harmful ought to be prevented.

Therefore, violence and lack of restraint must be prevented.

Preventing lack of restraint means the implementation and upkeep of restraints.

Contention 3:

The community/common good is the check that man needs on his violent individual nature.

Point 1 (Basic argument):

If contention one showed that men without accountability are violent and dangerous and that individuality can lead to this, and contention two proved that therefore men are in need of a restraint, contention three necessarily begs the question: what should that restraint be? Nature? No, for the natural state is brutish individualism. God? Possibly, but this would mean our debate would have to shift to theological grounds. Other men? Yes, this is where the answer lies. And Hobbes and Locke see this too, for this is the basis of the Social Contract Theory. That all men give up a little bit of their individual freedoms to create a body (government/community) that pursues the good of all that helps society not to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

Point 2 (Why this matters to the Resolution):

Well, if community naturally helps to aim at what is good for the most people, then we see a benefit for the masses that clearly increases the standard of living over what it would be if we were given some sort of Robinson Crusoe or Lord of the Flies individualism. Therefore, since the outcome of community is better for all parties involved it ought to be pursued over the individual.

Point 3 (Historical/Philosophical):

Many religions and philosophies point to an emphasis on the community and common good rather than the individual.

Communitarianism holds this claim as the basis of their philosophy.

Aristotle holds this to be true when he prioritizes the polis.

Hegel believes this through his principle of Sittlichkeit (community involvement priority).

Christianity shows this through the church community and through the sacrifice of Jesus (an individual) for the priority of the community of mankind.

Judaism shows this through a followed common law (Halaka) that promotes the common good.

Islam promotes the Ummah, and collective prayer and worship for the good of its community.

This is just a small list; the examples go on. Successful regimes, philosophies, and the truest religion all are centered around community. For Christianity has large principle in sanctification (or dying to ourselves) to become more like Jesus and more uniformly perfect in God's eyes through faith.

Overall, it is clear: unchecked man is dangerous, so the solution is a common good/community that ought to be pursued and prioritized so that man can live a truly meaningful life.

Alright, let's get into the specifics here.

1. " You say, "If a benefit to me or benefits I perceive which are the most meaningful to me, are not prioritized, why should others be prioritized over that?" I just want to confirm if this is the worldview you are working from (rational egoism is what I see it as). Another quote from you that makes me think this is "Everything that I want or desire that I say is good or is of benefit may or may not be just only good for me. Even if it isn't, so what?" As well as "Particularly if and or for certain my being is the only one certified with a consciousness, I'm the only one that exists in terms of verification."
2. You say, "Why should the majority get priority dictation over an individual's life, let alone my life?" thus conflating prioritization with dictation, this is a false assumption and not in line with the definition that I gave.
3. You ask, "Question to the opposite side. Do you believe in self autonomy?" This question is extraneous to the resolution. Notice the Resolution does not say 'Resolved: There is no Self-Autonomy' In order for you to get an answer to this I must see you prove how this pertains to this debate, but in this time no such logic has been seen. And yes, I do acknowledge that it exists, and that society is a check on it so that we can have the common good.
4. You say, "Do you also champion or encourage a communist or socialist society?" Another false dichotomy and assumption which conflates a promotion with communism/socialism.
5. Your 10 extraneous subtopics again do not/have not been proven to pertain to the resolution at hand, and aside from that flaw they are also loaded questions. They attempt to force me into taking an extreme centralist side when all I did was prove that the common good ought to be prioritized over the individual. Not only this but they also attempt to derail our resolution and turn it into 10 simultaneous policy debates, which was not the goal in this.
6. You fail to engage in any meaningful way with the resolution or my contentions. Rather than attempt to advance your argument you only barrage me with policy debate topics and fail to prove how they relate to why a common good should not be prioritized over the individual which is your thesis to this resolution naturally.

Also, having done more research I find that Rousseau promoted the 'General Will' or the common good. Confucius also promoted family and communal good (above the individual). African philosopher Ubuntu famously says "I am because we are" showing a piousness and prioritization of the common good. My view is held by one of religions and philosophies all around the globe. And it is rare that something is this widely agreed upon.

Furthermore, on a scientific level, studies by WHO show that "Social connection can protect health across the lifespan. It can reduce inflammation, lower the risk of serious health problems, foster mental health, and prevent early death." Even on a biological level man ought to be in a community. The Christian God Himself says (Gen. 2:18) ""It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper."" It is also due to these benefits of the common good and community that "solitary confinement" is viewed as a punishment for the individual is all alone and left to his own devices with any share of the common good. The religious, philosophical, and biological evidence points to one main fact: man works best when in community and when aimed at the common good.

So,

I. "No it's no worldview but it's an unconventional perhaps, opposing position that I can take to test your position to see if it holds up by overcoming the lack to justify it if I have nothing to justify going beyond my individual priorities myself."

Alright, so you're backpedaling on the rational egoism worldview. If it was only a "test" then it was never a real objection to my case, meaning my case still stands unrefuted.

II. You bring back up individual-autonomy yet again fail to show how it is related to the resolution rather you assert (without evidence "The topic is concerning the individual person. The individual autonomy pertains to the topic.") that it is. I mean I guess this is sort of a syllogism, yet relevance of concept is not necessarily relevance of topic. Autonomy existing is not in dispute, what is prioritized is.

III. Again, you raised a question with a false dichotomy and that was extraneous to the topic at hand. Rather than defending it you only raise it again. Please show its relevance and fix the current fallacy of it as well as the other questions. Repetition is not sound argumentation.

IV. What you are calling a cross examination is only extraneous questions geared to a policy debate rather than an engagement with the philosophical core of the resolution. And you make the false assumption that pursuit of common good means totalitarian policies.

I leave you with this. Your questions are extraneous and outside the realm of the debate and do not require answers unless they are proven to have any relevance. But to just boil it down one more time:

Men without checks cause chaos as shown by Game Theory, literature, and history.

Men therefore need a check.

The check is the community aimed at the common good that benefits all rather than the base desires of an individual. Historians/philosophers/theologians agree. Thank you for your time, I rest my case ("Case closed")