args

CON

• CON

  According to the difference principle, inequalities in...

  Show full argument

  Resolved: The country of Scotland should legalize gay marriage.

  Please note that as of 8:09 A.M., my opponent has not posted any of his sources for the second round. Con Case Justice My opponent has agreed to adopt the standard of Justice for this round, so whoever best upholds Justice should gain your vote. I offered Aristotle's definition of Justice, namely that of "treating equals as equals and unequals and unequals." He first claims that this definition of Justice is poor because it does not provide any threshold as to what being unequal would entail. This really isn't a good argument. At this point in the case, we are debating philosophy, and not law. It is not the purpose of philosophers to define what the law should entail, but rather to grant a set of universal principles that can be applied by politicians to legal decisions. The reason that the treatment isn't defined is that it varies from situation to situation. In the case of hiring, unequals wouldn't be considered for the job (for example, people without medical degrees would not be considered for a job as a physician), and in the case of criminal trials, unequals wouldn't go to jail (noncriminals would not be punished while criminals would). The point is that my definition isn't supposed to provide specific legal standards because it is a universal standard that can be applied to a wide variety of situations. This isn't a reason to reject a philosophical idea. He then claims that this could result in unfair discrimination and would allow any number of atrocities. He cites the examples of blacks, for examples. The reason that this doesn't make sense is that he is ignoring the fact that Justice must be applied holistically, and that the unequal treatment is only for specific scenarios in which there is a significant difference between two groups such that they merit unequal treatment. I'll use his own example to clarify. Blacks have been systematically discriminated against throughout history. It is therefore just to compensate the victims of discrimination. Individuals who have not been discriminated against (whites, for example), don't merit compensation since they are unequal with regards to being discriminated against. This doesn't mean that we can strip whites of all of their right to life, however, just because they are unequal in that one regard. Whites and blacks are humans and thus both deserve to have the right to life. Stripping whites of their right to life in this situation would be unjust because they are equals to blacks in this regard and if we stripped them of their rights, they would be wrongfully treated as unequals. The difference in treatment only extends to the specific situation in which they are unequals; it does not extend to realms in which the groups are equals. Therefore, the standard I provide safeguards against unfair discrimination. Finally, he accepts Justice as the standard but does not provide any alternative definition. He claims to use the Merriam-Webster version, but that was neither posted in his arguments nor was it sourced, and Merriam Webster has seven different definitions of Justice. [1] Since he hasn't provided any clear definition of Justice, we accept my standard. This will have implications that I will explain later. Aristotle and Rawls The Rawls analysis explains that each individual has inviolable dignity that cannot be overridden by social calculations of good, which do not consider what individual is due. My opponent first claims that Rawls and Aristotle have different definitions of justice because Rawls enumerates rights that people have. This is false. Rawls uses the same definition of Justice as Aristotle, and the rights that he enumerates are those rights that people have by virtue of the fact that they are equal. The fact that Rawls has the same definition is evident through his difference principle. According to the difference principle, inequalities in the distribution of goods are fair if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society [2]. In other words, the people who are worst off deserve some sort of special consideration, while their unequals, the people who are best off, do not merit this treatment. Rawls is using the same standard as Aristotle; he is treating equals (the worst off) in a different manner than the unequals (the best off). My opponent next claims that Aristotelian ethics are incompatible with Rawls' analysis because Aristotle argues in favor of utilitarianism. I'll first note that I never adopted Aristotle's ethical theory; I simply used his definition of Justice, which is the same standard that Rawls uses. Next, I'll note that this argument is false; Aristotle's version of eudaimonic happiness is completely different from utilitarianism's hedonic happiness. Utilitarianism's hedonic happiness allows for individuals to do as they please in order to maximize happiness in society [3]. Aristotle explicitly rejects this hedonic calculation and instead argues that some means of pursuing happiness, while yielding pleasure, do not promote well-being because they do not promote achieving the human potential [4]. Just feeling good isn't enough to pursue happiness (which is what utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham claim) [4]. In fact, Aristotle would reject homosexuality and non-procreative sex entirely since they don't utilize the sexual organs to their full potential (procreation) and thus submit to base pleasures instead of eudaimonic happiness. The implications of this are twofold. First, Aristotelian ethics do not promote utilitarianism and do not conflict with Rawls' analysis. Second, since my opponent adopts Aristotle's theory in his arguments, and Aristotle would reject non-procreative sex, his philosophical structure is turned entirely and flows Con. He next claims that his definition of Justice permits utilitarianism and that my rejection of util is unfair since other standards permit it. I'll first note that he never specified which of Merriam-Webster's seven definitions of Justice he is using, and some of them reject utilitarianism entirely. We are accepting my standard because he has not provided any other clear definition. Second, my rejection of utilitarianism stems from Rawls' argument that because all individuals are equal, they have basic rights that cannot be stripped away from social calculations that consider social good but not what each individual is due. Util only looks at majoritarian benefit, but not at individual rights. The only conceptions of justice that permit util are those that reject rights entirely, and he cannot use any of those standards because one of the arguments in his case was about civil rights. He has to accept my standard because using any of those other standards would contradict his own case. Observation 1 I demonstrated that the notion of infertile couples is irrelevant since marriage is about actions that are procreative in type and not in effect. He argues that this is a double standard because they are the same in effect. It really isn't a double standard because marriages are about actions that are procreative in type and not in effect. What makes an act procreative in type is the nature of the act itself, and not any external factors which may be imposed on it [5]. Gay sex is not procreative in type while heterosexual sex is; the infertility of one of the partners is an external factor that is being imposed [5]. If it really bothers my opponent, however, I'm willing to argue that infertile marriages should not be recognized by the state as well. Syllogism The following premises of my syllogism were conceded: 1, 3, and 6. He rejects premise 4 on the basis that granting gay marriages licenses does not detract from the special social value of heterosexual marriage in any way. (The question of who assigns the value is nonsensical because it is obviously the government. That was made very clear throughout the debate.) The problem is that premise 3 explains why this is the case. Premise 3 (which was entirely conceded by my opponent) notes that What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. Granting gay marriages the same recognition as heterosexual marriages (which do have special social value as noted by the conceded premise 1) would be a denial of the special social value of heterosexual marriages since they would not be receiving the special social recognition and sanction that they merit as per premise 3; rather, they would be receiving the same recognition as the gay marriages which do not deserve that recognition. He next attacks premise 2 by claiming that gay couples can reproduce. This is false. Gay couples cannot reproduce with each other; rather, they use heterosexual unions to reproduce. As premise 1 notes, heterosexual union is still the indispensable means through which life (which is a precondition to society) begins, even for gay couples. His argument holds no water. He rejects premise 5 on the basis that it's incompatible with my definition of justice. This doesn't even make sense. The point of the syllogism is to prove that homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are unequals and thus merit unequal treatment. The equal marriages (heterosexual) are being treated one way; the unequal marriages (gay) are being treated another. This fits the definition. Pro Case In response to his claim about civil rights, I noted that as long as the state does not interfere with private gay marriage, failing to recognize such marriages is not a violation of rights because rights are negative. He claims that because marriage is formed and regulated by government, if the state does not grant licenses, it is banning it. This is utterly false. First, marriages were not created by the state; rather, they predate the state and human society altogether [6]. Second, he's confusing recognition with regulation. The state is not regulating marriage because it is not granting specific groups special licenses to conduct marriage ceremonies and it is not forcing people to go through specific ceremonies in order to be regarded as privately married. All of these aspects are regulated by private individuals. The only thing that the state does is grant recognition to heterosexual marriages; it does nothing else. If the state were regulating marriage, it would be dictating who can privately marry whom and would be forcibly breaking up private marriages that it disagreed with. This isn't the case in Scotland; governmental recognition of one's relationship is not a precondition to being privately married. I used his own definition of second class citizen to disprove his claim that gays are second class citizens. He has now shifted his claim to the idea that they are "closer" to being second class citizens. The fact of the matter is that by his own definition, they are not second class citizens, so no violation is taking place. There is no standard for being "close" to a second class citizen; either someone is a second class citizen or someone is not. He's just being vague to cover the fact that his own definition disagrees with his argument. He next concedes that since the provisions against same sex marriage also apply to heterosexuals, the state is not technically discriminating against gays, but the then claims that since only gays would want to marry gays, they are being discriminated against. It doesn't matter if gays are the only people who want to marry gays; the standard applies to all people regardless of sexual orientation. His argument is similar to claiming that prohibitions against pedophilia are discriminatory because only pedophiles want to engage in such behavior. This doesn't make any sense because the standard is applying to all people regardless of their desires. Discrimination implies unequal treatment, and the treatment here is completely equal. He next claims that Aristotle's justification of happiness would promote gay marriage, so utilitarian calculations should be considered. I've already explained why 1. Aristotle opposes utilitarianism and 2. He opposes homosexual and non-procreative sex. His theory isn't about increasing hedonic happiness; it is about achieving eudaimonic happiness. This response holds no water and I also turn the structure of his case. He next says that there is no incentive for gays to get privately married. This doesn't make sense. The value of marriage stems entirely from the love and commitment one has to one's partner, and not from a piece of paper that someone else gives you claiming that he recognizes your marriage. If gays really love each other, they have plenty of incentive to get privately married. In response to his Prop 8 study, I claimed that the reason that gays felt stress was that they came under increased scrutiny and attack. He says that his study examines all such amendments. His response is nonresponsive. Gays came under increasing scrutiny and attacks when all of those amendments were being issued, meaning that this explains the stress in all cases. He finally reiterates his point about defending my conception of justice. Note that he didn't provide any definition, so mine must be used. Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-country-of-Scotland-should-legalize-gay-marriage./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.96

    universal: 2.43

    premises: 1.72 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.41)

    sourceText: 0.72 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.50)

    basic: 1.18

    premises: 0.79 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.23)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.24)

    should: 3.35

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 0.89 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.70)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.91)
• CON

  Everyone owns wealth if they choose to hoard it, that’s...

  Show full argument

  Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.

  Contrary to pro's assertion, nations with universal healthcare are not nearly as wealthy as the US whose free market system has made it possible. The 2nd wealthiest nation is the PRC whose GDP is only half of the US. Also, average amounts/person are inaccurate because they don't include individual data that accounts for the actual amount spent by each individual (http://epianalysis.wordpress.com...). The US ranks 30 on life expectancy because nations with socialized healthcare have other “progressive” policies such as working limits. People in the EU are limited to 48 hours/week (http://en.wikipedia.org...) meaning that the time spent in stressful work settings is smaller in the EU and stress is a common cause of coronaries (http://www.mindbodygreen.com...) and the US has a higher occurrence of coronary deaths than any of pro's examples (same as pro's source). The US is also good at preventive care in terms of cancer and senior vaccinations (http://www.urban.org...). Its treatment of diabetes is superior to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, and its cancer treatment is superior to 17 other European nations. On access, even someone who makes minimum wage can afford a visit to the doctor ($180) and one prescription ($161) (http://www.dailyfinance.com...) a year if they are sanitary and frugal. In the long run they may save the excess money to invest, increasing income further. Savings, investments, and wages also grow more quickly when free markets are allowed to work unimpeded (cross apply to living wage argument). Also, if the government controls healthcare, the industry ceases to answer to the market and doesn't have to improve and can even use its power to choose who is served and who isn't based on anything. While this doesn't happen the instant a service is socialized, it should not be risked. On insurance, the reason that companies don’t pay for preexisting conditions, cap the care, and raise rates for those with health risks is that otherwise, the business would pay more money than it brought in and fail. Meaning that payment would have to be out of pocket again which is usually more difficult and costly than using insurance. Income growth, competition, and an incentive to provide low cost education to more of the market will make private education more affordable. Pro has also forgotten that the reason that private schools in the US are high rate is that public schools (everyone pays) have driven the low cost private schools (users pay) off the market while the actual economic cost of public education is enormous (round 1). When looking at public education in other nations and its effect on the economy, we have to analyze the GDP of these nations and their landmasses (https://www.cia.gov...). When comparing the three largest examples pro gave, we find that, put together, Australia and Canada have almost twice the land of the US but only 1/5 of its GDP, showing that public education systems may not serve economies well. Also quality access would be available to most if public education ended allowing cheaper schools back onto the market and giving the current expensive private schools competition. Hoarding wealth isn't theft. Everyone owns wealth if they choose to hoard it, that’s their business, they cease to act in the market and do not benefit from it. This leaves everyone else to exchange their wealth for a different kind of wealth and to generate more. Thus, wealth doesn't move bottom up, or even necessarily up down, it grows in free markets. The oligopolies to which pro refers were likely the cronies of government during the 1800s (http://mises.org...). Business is not as powerful as pro says, it must always answer to the market. If the market doesn’t like the product, the market won't buy it. This is why an oligopoly can't kill competition. If a new competitor appears that has better products, the market will shift to the competitor. I agree that in order to participate in government, people should be informed but if the government is the doing the informing, this power could be as easily abused as power over socialized healthcare. Examples of governments abusing their power over children include the HJ (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and various communist nations where public education was used for brainwashing. Ending welfare creates an incentive to find productive work but the incentive to work is reduced when you are provided with government assistance. With regards to layoffs, fewer people would be laid off if the government didn’t hinder business with heavy taxes, regulations, and monetary stimulus which causes recessions (http://mises.org...) according to Misesian Theory. Also, there is no evidence or logic that says a sense of security helps find jobs. Also, almost anyone has the means to work if they have a big enough incentive to. Pro’s argument on payment & access doesn't constitute evidence or logic, it's just an attempt to appeal to emotion and should not be considered over logic and examples. Yes working conditions were bad by today’s standards but again only because this was the birth of industrial capitalism. Also, the reason that children worked was because otherwise they and their families would have starved or returned to their lives as subsistence farmers with much lower standards of living. Yes the machinery was dangerous and the factories crowded, but that’s what hazard pay is for and again, from 1865 to 1900, income grew by 2.14%/year whereas in the last century it has grown by only 0.85%/year (http://usinfo.org...). This same argument applies to developing nations. Pro affirms that progressivism didn't create wealth or jobs. Also you can’t have a good economy but harm the public overall because the economy is the public. The economy is composed of every individual and business that operates. You harm the economy, you harm the public and vice versa. Pro has stepped back on his statement that the property rights system works (round 3). The reason that some people didn’t sue for damage is partly because of initially slow wealth generation. Another reason is that much land was still publicly owned, it wasn’t until 1862 that the government began to privatize this (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Even then only 10% of it was sold and was distributed throughout not just around factories. Further, environmental damage can't necessarily be prevented by government regulation, the waterways in the US are an example. These aren't privately owned but publicly owned and regulated (http://mises.org...). The government in this instance is one of the biggest polluters because of the publicly run sewage system, there already exist viable and nonpolluting chemical toilets but why buy one when you'll still have to pay for everyone else to pump it into the river. The social market doesn't work well. Correlation is not causation. Scandinavia may seem rich but what does it happen to be sitting on top of? North Sea oil. Similarly, because Saudi Arabia is a rich monarchy doesn't mean that monarchies are the best governments. Also, if we do another analysis regarding land and GDP, with pro's examples here, the combined landmass is still about twice that of the US and yet their total GDP is 3/5 of the US. If one were to graph the Heritage data, you would see that the overall rating for the US fell after the implementation of anti-free market policies which I openly oppose in this debate. Pro again ignores the effect of time on governments with too much power. "Trusts" remains unanswered. Sumarry next round.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Essential-services-should-be-socialized-and-privatized-services-should-be-regulated./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.95

    universal: 2.40

    premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.84)

    should: 4.09

    conclusion: 2.94 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.10)

    premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)
• CON

  I mean, if you walk into a board meeting, and you see...

  Show full argument

  Breathing should be Illegal

  R1) The whole conduct thing Romanii has not only threatened all your lives but also been sexist to me. He says "This means that it *is* okay to punish Con for her conduct, but simultaneously not-okay to punish me for my advocacy." The rest of the paragraph is just fluff and filler. In this sentence he makes it very clear that he thinks I'm less right than him because I'm a woman. This is absolutely ridiculous. Please do not give him any conduct for this kind of behavior. R2) Weed Actually, we would be very large frogs. Not humans. So yes, it would be macroevolution. Romanii attempts to recover his case, but there is no saving the matter. Either we breath air or we don't. If we make breathing illegal, we might as well just make happiness illegal. Sure, Airmax would live, but we wouldn't be able to take in all the good things he gives us. Romanii essentially wants to illegalize a god when you sort of think about it. R3) Environmtal sources Guys, Romanii totally scribbled all over that graph. I mean, if you walk into a board meeting, and you see your boss taking other company's graphs and scribbling all over them in crayon, you're not going to be like, "Oh, this guy knows what he's doing. I'm so glad I work here." You'll be more like, "Hey, this guy's tripping balls over here. I would quit if this job didn't pay so well." R4) Shut up, Romanii Well, I identify as the Troll Goddess on DDO, and that position has always been accepted. So even if Romanii does identify as not being everyone, then I'm still above him. And we must remember that I actually appointed Thett3 to succeed me as Troll King when I ascended to be Troll Goddess. So I'm above him, and I'm above Romanii. Not to mention, Romanii is claiming to not b a person. He's basically objectifying himself, which I'm totally okay with. And those parlour tricks he tried at the end? Try not to think of an elaphant. Or a giraffe. And definitely don't itch your nose. See? Easy. Romanii should really shut up now before he embarrasses himself any further. R5) Women's rights Sorry, I thought this argument was just a joke. I mean, we can't take it seriously. He wants to give Mother Nature equal rights in today's society. With glass ceilings and crap, there's no way we can take this argument seriously yet. Under the status quo, this is impossible. Women need their equal rights first, then we can talk about this. R6) Pain I've read the argument, and I disagree. Suffering is only good if someone likes it (you know like masochists and crap). See, morality is determined by self-interests, because that's all we really know to be true. So with that in mind, think of this. Babies wouldn't know how to follow the law right? Imagine having to hold a baby's nose and mouth and wait until it slowly dies in your hands, just so you could obey the law. Now that I have you bawling your eyes out, vote con. R7) The right one Okay, let me put this into a syllogism for you: P1: I'm the Prophet of the Great Morgan Freeman. P2: Morgan is Freeman is always right. C: I am right. Now it's in a syllogism, so you can't disagree with it. And Romanii is actually committing the moro i fallice de toa porpolisium via dedunden la tia fallacy aside from begging the question. Which is like, the two worst fallacies ever. Anyone who's studied logic for a day knows this. It's basic stuff. R8) Thett3 Okay, first of all, just because Romanii has a man crush on Thett3 doesn't mean anything. But again, cross apply this to my earlier rebuttal where I stated that I am actually above Thett3 on a level of deity. Romanii here is like a child admiring the gods. Not the other way around. And Romanii, I'm really sorry for this. I promised myself I wouldn't destroy you as hard as I'm about to, but I feel like it has become necessary. I must pull out my trump card. I hope there's no hard feelings between us, but I use ability 1. You automatically lose according to the rules. So voters, I hope you give some careful consideration to the debate. There are a few things that cannot be overlooked, and I'll put them in a nice little summary for you: 1) Romanii is a sexist jerk 2) Romanii hates Airmax 3) Romanii is delusional 4) Romanii should just shut up before he embarrasses himself any further 5) Romanii must be joking 6) Babies 7) Syllogism and Latin 8) Bromancing and my Trump card. Thank you for reading.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Breathing-should-be-Illegal/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.93

    universal: 0.65

    sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.36)

    sum: 2.13 (product 1.77, product 0.36)

    sum: 2.15 (product 1.00, product 1.06, product 0.09)

    basic: 2.13

    premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.14)

    should: 4.15

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  I understand what you say about the job pool, but look at...

  Show full argument

  The Minimum Wage Should be Abolished.

  In case youre unaware, Macroeconomics is economics dealing with broad society, im not sure what you mean by economic theory in that sense. I was merely saying "this is how MW works in the broad sense". Im not sure how that constitutes a legit argument on your part though. Ill go down on your numbered responses: 1) You misunderstand, workers get laid off as a result of poor production. Minimum wage that forces the worker to work harder (in the way you portray it) is in fact, the ideal criterion of capitalism. My argument are not based in a fake world. Stable economies have, and in some places do, exist. In an unstable economy (where there is poor production and a lack of jobs are available) there are going to be layoffs no matter what the MW is or if it exists at all. 2)you did not demonstrate that at all. only that 10 people in your example would lose thier jobs, but i logical showed you how that isnt true. 3) Im not assuming that businesses are alone in setting prices of their products. I am assuming that they would (in your MW-less world) would be free to set the wages of their employees. I understand what you say about the job pool, but look at it like this: cell phone companies charge ridiculously high prices for an unlimited, overhead-less product... "minuets". How does this happen? The cell phone minuet industry is by no means a monopoly? It happens because if all the companies work together to sell at the same price, they dont compete, but share the market. The same happens if you have no MW. you end up with companies who make the universal agreement to pay lower workers, lower wages (i.e. if all companies pay their factory workers 2 bucks an hour, whos gonna stop them?) If your competitive job pool assumption was correct, current companies restricted by the MW laws would offer their employees above MW to attract them away from competing companies. Unfortuneatley, that doesnt happen 4) i did address this, refer to my opening rebuttal in round 1. 5) Theres no such thing as an economy that has a 0 unemployed rating, but there by all means are stable economies (research US of the 90s, UK of early 00s, israel now). Prices are created by supply and demand, but MW doesnt increase price unless youre willing to give companies that free will that allows them to abuse workers. In all, this debate comes down to whether or not you can prove logically or empirically that abused workers is a justified means to reaching the end result of cheaper products. Morally, ethically, economically and politically, youre 100% wrong.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Minimum-Wage-Should-be-Abolished./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.93

    universal: 3.60

    premises: 3.23 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)

    should: 3.09

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.91)
• CON

  It's the same case with some self-destructing drugs. ......

  Show full argument

  Dueling should be legalized

  My opponent insists on the fact that I've contradicted myself on the definition of state. She argues that people don't actually agree to having a state, but comply to it to avoid negative consequences. This consequences can in fact occur if someone openly challenges law and order, but it's because the agreement refers to a sound majority, not to one or two individuals. Take for example Cheran, a little town in Michoacan, Mexico. Here, the majority of the people didn't agree to the state, government and laws, so they overthew the local governments and have established an "anarchist" model. If this should happen to a large scale, the agreement would effectively break. The fact that people vote, work, pay taxes and continue with their lives (at least the majority) means they agree to having a state. Utilitarianism Again, I am not arguing in favor of an utilitarian state or for utilitarianism as the ultimate system of justice. Like my opponent said, I admit the flaws of pure utilitarianism and agree to the fact that it cannot be applied in every case. I am using an utilitarian approach for dueling and its legality (if this debate was about another topic, maybe utilitarianism had a moral deficiency which would render it not viable). However, this is not the case and I think I've demonstrated that dueling is not convinient under such approach. Moreover, I've demonstrated there is no immorality or injustice in judging this issue under utilitarianism. The benefits it produces to society are a valid way to decide on the legality of an issue, as long as higher values are not compromised. In this case, higher values are not compromised, on the contrary, my other approach (aretaic ethics) shows how it's virtuous to keep dueling illegal. Non-Aggression Principle I'm sorry I didn't address the Non-Aggression Principle in the last round, I was running out of space. The NAP is an incomplete principle and it should not be taken as a valid normative of law. The NAP basically works so that the action is not unjust, which is fine, but completely neglects important factors like virtue, human value or benefits. The fact that legalized dueling does not break the Non-Aggression Principle is barely a good enough reason to make it legal. I retake my seat belt example; it doesn't break the NAP but governments still value human life enough to fine those who attempt against it. It's the same case with some self-destructing drugs. I stand the NAP alone is incomplete and therefore an insufficient system of legality. Aretaic Ethics My opponent noted a contradiction, and maybe it is my fault for being so vague in defining my arguments. I apologize for this. I said there is no specific way to determine the goodness or badness in actions. This is to say you cannot take any action and consult a chart or something similar that tells you its moral value. However, moral value can usually be determined with much objectivity. In the case of killing, the moral value of the action is beyond obvious and rises from the premise that life is the basic unit of society, meaning its protection is the virtuous choice. My opponent keeps mixing up the two normatives I proposed to consider the legality of dueling. They are independent from one another, and the purpose is to show both are, separately, successful against her dueling case. Why is this posture important? Because ethics is the inherent knowledge about good and bad that us humans have and, for obvious reasons, we must advance and model our system towards the good. My opponent also added: "He agrees that both capital punishment and self defense can be justified. This defeats his argument about how killing is always wrong, and moreover he refused to respond to the fact that duels aren't always to the death. Very very very few fights (a modern duel would most likely be an honorable and contractual fight) start out without the intent to kill, and indeed it is the lawlessness and lack of honor that ultimately leads to deaths in street fights. To be clear, this is a turn argument. If life is inherently valuable, letting people fight in situations where they're less likely to kill eachother is beneficial. " I didn't address her "not all duels are to death" declaration because I find it irrelevant as long as some duels are to the death. That's like saying "let's allow drunk driving because not all cases of drunk driving result in accidents." Whenever discussing legality, the worst possible consequence has to be considered, it is absurd to do otherwise. If at least one duel can end in death, it has to be taken as if every duel would end up in death, there is no middle ground. Dueling bad Here, my opponent tries to invalidate my position with heavy talk but does little more than to go through the issues already discussed. First, my opponent discarded utilitarianism and said that advantages vs. disadvantages were irrelevant. She gives but three advantages (as compared to the seven disadvantages I mentioned) and rules mine irrelevant advocating for the NAP. I had not discussed NAP at that point but I have now, and I declare it as insufficient as she declares utilitarianism. Human value is inherent, I believe that was settled. I already explained in one of the previous sections the reasoning for virtue to be in defense of life. My opponent claims my position values humans beings as a mean and not as an end. This is false, just because I used utilitarianism it does not mean I believe human life to be of lesser value. Again, I was not advocating to a utilitarian "worldview" but to a utilitarian approach to this case. There might be other cases where util. enters in direct conflict with ethics and moral and then I would not consider it a viable normative. Finally, my opponent claims she's established dueling as a basic right, under the weak and incomplete NAP. I already refuted NAP and since my opponent failed to give a stronger normative, it's status as a right is not settled. Her three advantages, out of which only one was conceded, don't make a utilitarian case in her favor. I maintain dueling should not be a right and the reasons I used to support it are still valid.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Dueling-should-be-legalized/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.92

    universal: 0.26

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.54)

    sum: 2.52 (product 2.18, product 0.34)

    sum: 2.15 (product 1.00, product 1.05, product 0.09)

    basic: 2.52

    premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.09)

    should: 4.15

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  The amount for a life-in-prison prisoner is less than 1%...

  Show full argument

  The death penalty should exist

  I again thank Lannan for his acceptance, I am looking forward to this debate. He forgot to put his sources at the end of his argument, so they are all compiled here: http://pastebin.com.... Before I start my arguments, I would like to remind the reader, as well as Lannan, that we should care more for a governmental impact than a personal impact, e.g. the government falls apart v. one man is mad. This is because we are advocating for a change in governmental policy, and we are more concerned for society in general than a few people. This isn't to say, however, that we should throw morality out of the window - the government is made to uphold the morals of the people and to protect the rights of the people. C1. Non-efficient cost. A. General burden. According to a study done by Loyola Law School [1], the state of California has spent over $4 billion on the death penalty since it was resumed in 1978, which equates to over $300 million for each of the 13 executions that were carried out in the last 37 years. While this may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but in 2010 the state of California had a debt that rang to the tune of nearly $800 billion [2]. This is money that is uselessly spent on state executions that could be spent on relieving the debt crisis that the state is currently in, and allow for a higher quality of life for the people of California. And this is not only specific to the state of California, either. Since 1997, the state of Washington spent $120 million on 5 prisoners, equating to a $24 million court system cost per person, while the state currently has a debt of just under $80 billion [3][4]. The state of Maryland spent $186 million over five executions, meaning that each execution cost taxpayers $37.2 million each [3]. The state of Maryland also has a state debt of over $94 billion [5]. I could go on and on, but I decide to stop here. What I am trying to get at is that all of these funds that are going towards the death penalty are not necessary; instead they could go to improving the financial crisis that each of these states have. They could go to improving the quality of life of all of their residents instead of killing people without a just cause. The job of the government is to protect people and to ensure the maximum amount of rights that are necessary, not to decrease the quality or quantity of life of its inhabitants, and the amount of money that a state has a huge impact on this. B. Less efficient than life in prison. I could not find any statistics about a nation-wide average for the cost of life in prison without parole, so I will be using California as my basis. If my opponent asks I can delve deeper into the web to find nation-wide averages, but I believe that California is a fine example place to base this argument on. According to statistics that have been offered by the Office of California's Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, the average annual price for housing an inmate in a jail is over $47,000, while the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation finds that the average cost is just over $44,500 [6]. Whatever the actual number may be, which should logically be thought to be roughly $45,000, is lower than a death penalty process. If we assume that the average life-in-prison prisoner gets placed in there around age 20 and live to be around age 70, we see a time gap of 50 years. Using basic arithmetic (45,000 x 50), we get a grand total of around $2 million. When we compare this to the average cost of an execution in the state of California, which was stated earlier at a whopping $300 million, the disparity of these two numbers is absurd. The amount for a life-in-prison prisoner is less than 1% the cost of a death row inmate, which as a government cannot be condoned. C2. Morality. A. Innocent death. Innocence is not committing a crime that you are accused of, and in a society that holds onto justice such as the USA, if you have not committed a crime you are not expected to pay the dues of this crime. However, as the Guardian explains in an article released on 28 April, 2014, the amount of innocent people that have been posthumously declared as innocent is at 4% [7]. "At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent", they explain. In a just society, we should not be putting the innocent to death. Having any innocent deaths is atrocious and undermines the values of justice -- which according to Kant is a respect for the right (or innocent, in this case) [8]. Posthumously announcing that one is innocent does not give them the respect that they deserve, instead it declares that the system was wrong and that the system is not based upon justice, instead retribution. C3. Personal harms. A. Families touched by murder denounce the death penalty. It has been shown time and time again that families that have been touched by a person that may receive the death penalty do not actively or usually seek it when seeking justice for their loved ones. If we look back to the Boston Marathon Bombing that occurred two years ago (April 15, 2013), then we can remember that this was a day that was filled with both terror and death. However, the parents of the youngest victim taken by the bombing do not want the death penalty to even be considered when Tsarnaev is convicted. They say in a letter to the Boston Globe, "[w]e are in favor of and would support the Department of Justice in taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for the defendant spending the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of release and waiving all of his rights to appeal." What this means is that the family of someone who was taken by an act of terror do not want to see the killer die for his actions, just rot in prison [9]. Another good example of a personal harm created by the death penalty would be the case of Julie Welch, who was taken in an Oklahoma bombing. The family of Julie didn't seek the death penalty at all, and they said that executing people for crimes "is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie.... Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system." This means that another bombing victim's family doesn't want vengeance to be part of the justice system, but instead for justice to actually be sought [8]. If the family of a victim does not want to suffer more pain due to the death of a criminal, then why are we allowing them to? We are not truly honoring the victim's family or the victim themselves when we do these actions, and this is not morally permissible by the government. C4. Bipartisan Approval A. Example from Nebraska Nebraska was the last state to ban the death penalty outright, and they did so just a few days ago [10]. While the senate is officially and legally nonpartisan (no parties allowed, per state law), the majority of the senate leans to more conservative values. The lawmakers two weeks ago agreed that the death penalty is ineffective, costly, immoral and harms everyone involved. This was the first republican-leaning state in over 40 years to outlaw the death penalty [11]. When the bill passed into law, Ernie Chambers, a representative in the Nebraska Unicameral who has been fighting against the death penalty since he came into office in 1971 said, "[t]oday we are doing something that transcends me, that transcends this Legislature, that transcends this state. We are talking [and acting upon] human dignity." This is the ultimate weapon against the death penalty because instead of talking about something that has been on the democratic ticket for years, as was previously shrugged off as just being something that leans democrat, we are talking about something that even the most conservative people can agree on. That human dignity outweighs retribution. B. Rising support. I concede that the death penalty is still accepted by the majority of Americans as something that we should keep. However, there has been a rising trend of support of abolishing it. Right now, the support for the death penalty is the lowest it has ever been in 40 years [12], at what is considered a mediocre 60% of people polled. I do concede that support means justification for a process, however, the support has been declining since the mid-90's, where support staggered at a huge 80%. The declination of support suggests that the public is demanding change to what is currently happening in the country, and that they do not approve of the death penalty. This suggests that we should change the policy now before the legitimacy of the government becomes even more questioned than it currently is. References: [1]. http://www.lls.edu... [2]. http://ballotpedia.org... [3]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4]. http://ballotpedia.org... [5]. http://ballotpedia.org... [6]. http://www.mountain-news.com... [7]. http://www.theguardian.com... [8]. http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org... [9]. http://mashable.com... [10]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [11]. http://www.nytimes.com... [12]. http://www.gallup.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-death-penalty-should-exist/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.90

    universal: 0.73

    sourceText: 0.73 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.53)

    sum: 1.54 (product 1.27, product 0.28)

    sum: 2.62 (product 1.00, product 1.53, product 0.09)

    basic: 1.54

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.87)

    should: 4.62

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.53 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.94)
• CON

  Intro- Throughout the course of the justice system as we...

  Show full argument

  The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

  Intro- Throughout the course of the justice system as we know it, humanity has sought to find appropriate means in which a punishment might fit the crime. As it stands, with proper adjudication, we have found a workable model in which the tried and guilty of humanity have ability to contest their sentence, contest their trial, and prove their innocence or their situation being worthy of leniency before the sentence. The most extreme crimes in this world really don’t have the ability to have justice meted out. As we discuss this topic, seemingly in my back yard, one of the worst premeditated shootings to have occurred on American soil was just perpetrated in which 49 people were killed by the acts of one man. There really is no way that should this killer have been taken alive that there is a balance he could have paid back to society. The Death Penalty as we discuss it represents the last potential for a heinous perpetrator to find justice, for our laws to have a function, and our punishments to have meaning. It’s a clear statement that should your actions take the lives of others, you must pay in the only meaningful way for the evil that has been committed. Here are what I feel are the most compelling reasons for keeping the Death penalty as a real punishment, and an appreciably, viable deterrent. Right to Death- While the reader might puzzle over this, the rationale is quite simple. Currently, we do have capital punishment in certain states. I suggest a hypothetical to prove my point: if the offender in question knowingly pleads guilty, knowingly instructs his/her defense and the court that he/she knows his crime is horrible, does not feel he/she is worth rehabilitation, would prefer to die rather than risk potential release and commit this crime again, is this not a clear cut case of legally enacted right to die? If the offender states as such so plainly, the resolution as stated denies the right to die. Purpose of Justice- It has been stated that the reason for a justice system is as follows: “'The purpose of the Criminal Justice System... is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent.” (1) What is injustice? I contend we all know what that is when we see it. When Ponzi schemes are revealed and billions of dollars of people’s retirement disappear. When valuables are stolen and destroyed, leaving the victim with no recourse even when the offender is found guilty. Injustice is that sense of understanding that a void has been created by the offender, and no matter what platitudes might be offered, that thing, whatever it was that the offender acted on, is gone, and no reasonable efforts can replace it. Cars and money are replaceable. Justice is easy to find in a situation where a few thousand dollars are stolen from a robbed bank, and it’s easy to take that out of the perpetrator to attempt to make the victims whole. People, however, are not so easily replaced. There is no reasonable means a murderer can replace what they took from the victim’s family, or the victim themselves. Is it really possible to call a life time incarceration in which the most basic needs of life are provided to the offender as a just circumstance when such was not provided to the victim by the offender? Justice incarnate is represented by holding a balance. At its most basic of understanding, justice is the ability for equality to be achieved again, to find balance in the offense to right the wrong that was done. The resolution simply doesn’t allow for that. It gives carte blanche to an offender, that no matter how much they take and take and take of this most precious gift, life, it will never be in turn taken from them. That is simply not just. Accrued cost- I have no doubt this seems cavalier to state, but to the tax payer, as it stands, expedience in conducting sentence and proper appeals would prevent the tax payer (of which the victim’s family might be present) from paying for the lifestyle of the offender, however diminished it might be. I have no desire to support convicts in general, much less convicts that have been found guilty of killing those I love. I can’t imagine that sentiment would be unpopular amongst all the families of have killers of their family on death row. Numbers for incarceration vs execution vary widely, however from what casual inspection I have done, admittedly due to legal process, it costs more to attempt to execute an inmate than it does to keep them incarcerated permanently. This, however, assumes that the inmate makes use of all their appeals (a likely prospect). This also assumes that an inmate that is effectively a dependent of the state expires in a succinct fashion: that is to say they die quickly. Given the state of affairs regarding healthcare costs, such a statement of execution being a less expensive alternative can very much be a reality, and is more likely to be so as time goes on. (2) Deterrent- Given a majority of states that have specific law regarding crimes conducted with firearms, it is quite possible to rack up a life sentence by brandishing a firearm, shooting into the air, and using one in the commission of a felony. Ten/20/Life rules virtually guarantee that a poorly conducted robbery will result a life time of incarceration. Speaking logically, then… what does it matter if you kill some one in the commission of the crime? The deterrent effect of the death penalty is obviously widely debated, however a few conclusions can be drawn: -“Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).” -“Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.”

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Death-Penalty-Should-Be-Abolished/33/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.88

    universal: 0.48

    sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.02)

    sum: 2.50 (product 2.18, product 0.32)

    sum: 1.90 (product 1.00, product 0.80, product 0.10)

    basic: 2.50

    premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)

    should: 3.90

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.06)
• CON

  We need to avoid making laws that will capitulate to...

  Show full argument

  Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering

  Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.' Plato Wik:Source (1) Verdict : Despite widespread public and media perception, the Montana Supreme Court verdict did not establish a law; Oregon, California, Washington, and Vermont remain the only four states in the U.S. to have Death with Dignity laws. Pro's position is an example of a clamouring demand for something to be enshrined within law or, in other words, it is an effort to establish a 'legal right'. This is a legitimate component of law making. Pressure that proves irresistible eventually leads to a facilitation compromise. This is subsequently expanded to a point where it often becomes a Law that is unrecognizable even to its early supporters. Abortion law is a perfect example of this 'glacier effect' that transforms our intentions over time. (It just happens). We need to avoid making laws that will capitulate to become little more than a 'consensus of convenience' when exposed to attack. Conclusion. I mentioned the U.N. Declaration of We need to avoid making laws that will capitulate to become little more than a 'consensus of convenience' when exposed to attack. Conclusion. I mentioned the U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights (2) and I explained that this was conceivably, a sound basis for Law. It is however, without a real jurisdiction in which to operate. It's idealism has been rejected It is therefore, not Law. Legal considerations around P.A.S. overflow into all areas of actual Law in places like the U.S. both at State and Federal level. This suggests to me that P.A.S. is not that piece of the jigsaw requiring immediate attention. We need to establish our legal edges in the hope that they encapsulate generosity and compassionate. Within such a framework we might well be able to help the terminally ill and suffering patient to the best of our abilities as fellow human beings, be that in whatever manner that is agreed upon. Physician Assisted Suicide is not that way, IMHO I thank all who have followed this debate to this end. Sources (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.un.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Semi-Finals-Assisted-Suicide-Should-Be-Legalized-for-the-suffering/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.86

    universal: 4.18

    premises: 3.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.02)

    should: 2.47

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide...

  Show full argument

  The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

  Closing Statements: 1. On feminism. The irony of this debate is that, Christianity could be said to be one of the earliest proponents of feminism, in that, despite the cultural perspectives on women, Galatians 3:28 [53] epitomizes the view in Christianity that women are spiritually of equal worth to men. Whilst, conversely, in "Politics", Aristotle states that, "The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild [...] Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" [68], in which he reflects the Greco-Roman attitude of the inherent inferiority of the female sex, in comparing them to animals, in a section of the book wherein he is justifying slavery of those who are inherently inferior – coincidently to this debate, the American slave industry used similar justifications for their treatment of black slaves [69]. Which brings me back to round 2, in which my opponent suggests that economic prosperity is an indication of goodness, which is a weak argument, since once again, similar arguments would have justified the transatlantic slave trade, as slavery was a vital part of the economic system at the time [70]. And, one has to scrutinize the destination of the feminist movement, wherein feminists openly acknowledge the fact that feminism has not made women happy, rather it has caused a negative impact on women's happiness, with the justification being that unhappiness was to price paid for freedom [71]. However, the question arises on whether society has gone from an Orwellian pre-Suffrage system of oppression, to a Huxleyan system of oppression which gives women an illusion of freedom and choice, within the three waves of feminism [72]; which as Peter Hitchens wonderfully illustrates started forming during the second wave of feminism in the 60s, leading to a society in which women are encouraged into wage slavery to be exploited by the corporate machine [73], in the name of freedom, with the benefit of increasing taxable persons and state influence on children, by destabilizing the family unit – all of which has only progressively worsened with 3rd wave feminism. My opponent also off-handedly mentions that poverty and lack of sexual equality seem to be linked, whilst he himself admits that causation does not equate to correlation, he also misses the possibility that this situation may be explained by the fact that developing societies require male-dominated systems to progress, which unless we are provided with contrary evidence we can assume it to be so, seeing as no societies have developed with a female-dominated system [74]. Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide arguments for his resolution in relation to feminism, and why it should not be impeded, whilst I have throughout this debate provided sufficient support for a case against my opponents resolution, in my criticisms of feminism; in fact my opponent has conceded to my argument against the feminist ideology holding any transcendental nature from other ideologies, rather he has simply denied and later ignored my conclusion in round 2. 2. On Bronze Age texts. On the case of Bronze Age texts, I have not only provided the basic argument against Bronze Age texts inherently lacking value and consequently the right to be used to impede feminism, by confronting ideologies that may arise out of feminism, with the ideologies that may be contained within Bronze Age texts, but I have given an example for a case wherein a piece of Bronze Age literature should be used to impede feminism. Once again, in this case, my opponent has not only failed to provide any sufficient refutation against my basic argument against my opponents resolution in regards to Bronze Age texts, but he has also failed to provide sufficient arguments against specific examples of Bronze Age texts, to length of ignoring many of my rebuttals of his claims against Bronze Age texts, namely Biblical texts, despite the fact that some of the original arguments from my opponent were not even of the strictest relevance. Not only has my opponent failed to meet his resolution or refute my arguments, but he has consistently made baseless claims that Bronze Age texts are outdated in their ideological content without providing any arguments or citations for such claims, in a means to argue against the validity of Bronze Age texts; that is, to the point of repeating the same generalized claims, despite the fact that I had previously refuted said claims, such claiming that women were universally only perceived as property, and in particular incubators, in Bronze Age societies, despite my refutation of this claim in my 6th rebuttal, in 4th round. He has also continually made the claim that due to sociological and technological differences in modern and ancient societies, that Bronze Age texts are somehow invalid, without actually making the link between the two things, let alone providing citations to support his argument. Also, my opponent, has stated that Christian (or Jewish/Muslim) texts should, along with feminism, not be above scrutiny, something which I'd obviously agree with on extra-Biblical Jewish/Muslim texts; in fact, I'd agree with him on Biblical texts also, since without careful examination of the Bible, aberrant and heretical doctrines can become manifest as seen in many religious communities, or seen in my opponents provided passages, which out of context supported his arguments, but scrutinized within their entire context were shown to reasonable. 3. On conclusions. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his resolution given my arguments in round 2, as clearly illustrated throughout this debate, and furthermore, he has failed to give sufficient rebuttals against my arguments for my assertion that feminism should be impeded on the basis of Bronze Age texts, in specific regards to abortion rights. I have given sufficient arguments to support the position that morally, open access to abortion should not be legal, with Biblical foundation, which would impede feminist movement in regards to the woman's right to choice in abortion; to which, my opponent has failed to provide any refutations, but rather he has simply chosen to ignore my arguments because "in [his] opinion", my arguments were not strong enough, without actually justifying his position. To sum up, my opponent has failed to provide any sufficient argument for his case, and has generally failed to refute my arguments, and has ignored my rebuttals, especially so in regards to the arguments which I provided in round 4, in support of Biblical texts. I would like to close with a verse from the Bible, Psalm 51:5 [75], "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.", which once again affirms the personhood of a fetus in the Bible, which in relation to Exodus 20:13 [10], would provide a Biblical argument against abortion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to unforeseen circumstances [76] my previous round was forfeited, however I had posted it online externally [77], and mentioned it in the comments section.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-feminism-movement-should-not-be-impeded-by-Bronze-Age-texts/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.85

    universal: 0.48

    sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.02)

    sum: 2.50 (product 2.18, product 0.32)

    sum: 2.29 (product 0.79, product 1.41, product 0.10)

    basic: 2.50

    premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)

    should: 3.87

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.41 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  4] A clean conscience is a preferable consequence over a...

  Show full argument

  Dueling should be legalized

  First of all, I am glad to be able to debate this interesting topic against such an experienced debater, I hope it's a good debate. My opponent stated: "II. We can only assess what should/should not be legal when operating a under a compelling framework that provides proper justification for the existence of the state. For this reason, my main contention will be that dueling should be legal because states exist to protect rights. " I consider the final sentence is too broad when it comes to defining the purpose of the state. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty. The state consists, most broadly, of the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are settled in the form of laws. [1] So, by this definition, the state not only exists to protect rights but to establish order and security in a given society. More than a simple purveyor of rights, the state is the entity in that ensures the well-being of its people. Accompanied by this idea, philosophy of law has evolved throughout history to the point we can no longer synthesise the role of the state solely in the defense of freedom. My opponent stated: "Dueling is a right" My opponent declares that dueling is a right because free will entitles people to consensual dueling. This is true if examined strictly from a deontological viewpoint of law. Deontology is the view that the laws should protect individual autonomy, liberty, or rights. [2] However, my opponent falls in the mistake of taking this normative of law as the only and correct normative of law, when it's clear society is moving from the defense of free-will towards the defense of virtue. Take for example prostitution; a consensual exchange of money for sexual services. It's deemed illegal in many states, because other factors like exploitation, inequality, gender roles, ethics, morality and social costs and benefits are considered. Now that we've settled the "free will" approach is not the only approach to consider legality, I will discuss other approaches. Utilitarianism is the view that the laws should be crafted so as to produce the best consequences. [3] According to utilitarianism, it is evident that dueling should not be permitted. Human life is the basis of society, so it should be in the best interest of the state to protect it. Life is obviously the better consequence over death. Lets observe several ways in which the legalization of dueling enters in conflict with the utilitarian theory of law: Life is a preferable consequence over death in a society that values the human being as its basic unit. The winner of the duel gets the psychological burden of committing homicide. [4] A clean conscience is a preferable consequence over a psychological burden. The loser of the duel dies, meaning he or she can no longer pay taxes, contribute to the labor force, raise a family, etc. Having more people is preferable, unless we are faced with the problem of over population (which never justifies ending lives). If killing a person becomes legal, the mere act of homicide becomes socially accepted. This is a fact, we can see an illegal drug like marijuana being frowned upon by society while equally dangerous drugs are considered acceptable because of their legal status. A society that rejects homicide is a preferable consequence over a society that accepts it. Family and loved ones of the duel's loser are left with feelings of anguish and maybe even desire for revenge. This is, again, a less favorable consequence. If dueling is not properly controlled, it can be used as an excuse to commit murder. The same way as murderers sometimes claim self-defense, they can claim they were dueling against their victims and even get free if the process is not strictly controlled. Legislations and institutions for regulating duels cost money to the state. It is preferable to spend money on preventing deaths rather than promoting them. Aretaic moral theories such as contemporary virtue ethics emphasize the role of character in morality. Virtue jurisprudence is the view that the laws should promote the development of virtuous characters by citizens. [5] Here the result is even more evident. It is of lesser virtue to kill than not to kill. Killing other humans goes against nature and against ethics. We are supposed to be moving towards a post-conventional society (morally speaking). It wouldn't be convenient to go back to a pseudo-barbarian state where killing is justified by feelings like anger, wrath or even honor, with all virtue neglected. According to modern conflict theories, conflict will always exist, so the state should promote virtuous solutions like dialogue instead of fostering violent solutions. Now, my opponent also noted some "advantages" for the legalization of dueling. Let us go deeper: "Advantage one: Legitimitizing dueling could cut down on other acts of violence" I think both, my opponent and I, have insufficient information to make such a claim. It is not safe to assume dueling will replace street fights to some extent. We have to first know the demographics of these street fighters. Are they people interested in legality and honor more than they are in making damage? Prior to the debate, we agreed that the steps in order for the duel to be legitimate would not be taken into consideration, but since we are talking about legalized homicide one must speculate some kind of control is taken before the duel (to ensure its legality). Having said this, we cannot assume the average street fighter would choose to go through the complications of scheduling a duel rather than just fighting. Additionally, who can assure legal dueling will stop people from seeking vengeance after someone is killed? I personally consider too many assumptions have to be made for this claim to even be considered. "Advantage two: Promotes a sense of honor. " While it is true, it also brings dishonor into the value system of society. Moreover, it brings forward a choice that people normally don't have to face: Death or Dishonor? Both are undesirable choices, for it is obvious people would like to avoid both. We have to consider the social repercussion for a person who, thinking about his life and family, declines a duel. It is not fair that the state endorses a person to sentence another to or a life of cowardice and social disapproval. "Advantage three: Supports governments proper purpose" This is only true if you limit the governments' purpose only to granting rights. If we consider a government that must protect common interest, virtue and human value, legalizing dueling does not serve a proper purpose. Finally, I absolutely agree with my opponent when it comes to the state's role in protecting certain rights. Human rights, for example, are considered vital in any society and any form of government must protect them. However, when we discuss the right of two human beings to kill each other, I think it ought to be reconsidered. Do we really want to go back to a society were people can just lose control and decide to legally kill one another? We should seek for a government that protects us from emotion-driven action, serving as a voice of reason. The day human beings are allowed and encouraged to answer recklessly to their emotions, that is the day when the state really fails. Sources: [1] http://www.britannica.com... [2], [3], [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.killology.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Dueling-should-be-legalized/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 6.84

    universal: 0.26

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.54)

    sum: 1.61 (product 1.27, product 0.34)

    sum: 2.97 (product 1.00, product 1.87, product 0.09)

    basic: 1.61

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.09)

    should: 4.96

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.87 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.47)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.00)