The Instigator
PlightScandi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Are not profound autistics unworthy of life?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 36929
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

PlightScandi

Pro

And i don't mean necessarily all of them; just those who are clearly hopelessly trapped in the domain of amorality. I had read an article about one such character, a then-28-year-old Kansan man, who thumped an infant in a mall. And what did the judicial team do? They let him live on without consequence! This is killing with kindne", folks; persons like that are a danger to others around them.
Benshapiro

Con

The way you worded the title of this debate made me think you were autistic and were complaining about being made fun of so you made a debate about it.

Actually, you are just citing one example of a mentally ill person doing reprehensible acts and getting away with it. If you are gonna make a generalization about a large group of people, especially ones that are law-abiding, you can't give ONR sourceless example to support your claim. "Hasty generalization" is actually a documented logical fallacy.
Debate Round No. 1
PlightScandi

Pro

You yourself are probably guilty of another fallacy; an ad hominem attack, knowing how you opened your first argument there. In fact, you don't seem to have paid attention to the fact i said "hopelessly trapped in the domain of amorality", that is, unable beyond all possible methods of retraining to learn (and apply) moral behaviour. And here's my original source: autism gadfly.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/autistic-man-hits-a-baby.html And yes, it did say "charges would not be pressed against [Bruce] because of his inability to know right from wrong."
Another way to support my position is that people are megalithically confused as to the definition of "autism"; the way the so-called "experts" complicate such a simple word, which actually comes from Latin for "adherence to the self", an obsessive adherence to one self over all others, usually disproportionately. I myself don't fit that description, and the same is true with probably several ten thousand more so-diagnosed. Furthermore as we were so thoroughly taught, the burden of proof is on an assertion of a positive; not a doubt. Was your intention just to shame your opponent?
Again, i took the precaution of excluding truly law abiding folks from the "generalization" of "profound autistics thus being unworthy of life"; in fact, Quote-mining is another fallacy; and more; amoral persons from the definition DO NOT treat others as persons, nor would thoughts ever cross their minds as to who their choices would hurt, in fact the most basic reason we have laws in the first place is to aid a society's each and every individual in coexisting with one another. But persons like Bruce Jones, who frequently violate this coexistence through acting with abandon, should at least be punished if that's what's going to instill a decent sense of morality. Since he acknowledged he needed help, he likely did know right from wrong, to an extent, which brings up the extra problem of "wrong" and "illegal" NOT being one and the same.
In conclusion, i find there'll inevitably arise some persons who are indeed amoral beyond all retraining; and only those, should be denied the right to life.
Benshapiro

Con

My point is that many so-called "amoral" autistic folks never cause any harm. When something tragic happens like in this case, it's important not to make generalizations about any group of people. Especially an attack saying "they should be denied the right to life." Also, your post was quite confusing. I'm not sure what you mean by "...the burden of proof is on an assertion of a positive; not a doubt." You made the claim in your concluding sentence that those who are "amoral" should be denied the right to life. It isn't sufficient evidence to reference one case and blanket consequences over any group of people. Your single example is not sufficient enough to support your assertion. Everyone who is innocent until proven guilty of a crime worth being put to death for has the right to live.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
PlightScandiBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro made false accustions of logical fallacies (whilst Con's accusation was accurate). Argument to Con because Pro's argument is not only reprehensible, but it makes both a hasty generalization and an ecological fallacy. Pro also showed a profound failure to understand burden of proof.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
PlightScandiBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof and, as Con pointed out, gave no compelling reasons at all why a particular group of people should be deemed unworthy of living. I don't see the connection between knowing right from wrong and having the right to life.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
PlightScandiBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave Con a big fat win on the basis that Pro is promoting a position of inequality under the law. As for his argument that some autistic people have injured others, fine, prosecute them and inprison them like a normal criminal. DONT TAKE IT OUT ON ALL AUTISTIC PEOPLE! Also, I don't believe these kinds of debates add to human intelligence. They only make people feel more entitled and make the world more dangerous! There is such a thing as smart debates and there is such a thing as stupid ones!