The Instigator
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
juras
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Attempting to force a state of equality is immoral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
bossyburrito
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,188 times Debate No: 58796
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

bossyburrito

Pro

Definitions:

Equality: the state of being equal - the state of all qualities between two or more entities being the same (at least in a particular area).

Force: The use of private or governmental coercion would be considered to be the use of force.

Morality: The field of study concerning how any given individual (or group) should act in life.

In this debate, PRO will argue that initiating the use of force to achieve equality as defined above is moral and desirable.

The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments.

The BOP is split as follows- PRO must give arguments in favour of forced equality, and he must also refute the counter arguments made by CON. CON needs to explain why the arguments PRO makes are invalid to win the debate.

You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 8,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for two weeks.

I don't care much about voting, but please be fair.
juras

Con

i accept the challenge, fellow debater. however i would like to propose my definition of equality as a state of society where every person has equal opportunities for his goals
Debate Round No. 1
bossyburrito

Pro


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and I wish him well.



Firstly, I think I should, to the best of my ability, clarify what I mean by the initiation of force – this is not a change in definitions, but, rather, a matter of exposing the underlying and deeper meanings behind what was posted in the first acceptance round. I am not arguing that the use of force is wrong. I am, however, arguing that the initiation of the use of force is – in other words, force used to meet pre-existing force is not immoral, but force introduced not as a response to force, but as a response to peace, is. What, then, does this mean for the debate? This means that I am only to argue against the initiation of force, and not against true cases of self-defense. As such, it can be seen that I do not have to argue against the use of force to defeat, say, slavery – the slavers initiated the use of force. I would, though, have to argue against what is deemed to have been done not in self-defense.



Men have two main inherent rights – the right to life, without which no life would be possible, and the right to property, which is the right to the action needed to sustain and live life. These rights apply equally to all men – to break them would be immoral. As such, it can be seen that one man must not have the right to violate the rights of another – the very idea is a contradiction in terms. It would defeat the purpose of rights in general. From this, it is shown that the right to life cannot be the right to another’s property, since this being the case would result in a right conflicting with another right. If this is the case, then, the right to life must not be anything but the right to not have life taken away, and the right to property the right to not have any property taken away – and the initiation of force directly contradicts these rights.



If force is the use of coercion, then the initiation of force is necessarily the violation of property rights – both in terms of property such as land and property such as your body. Coercion threatens both of these things directly, and, as such, is immoral.



Now that I have set out that the initiation of force is immoral, I’m going to briefly go over why natural inequality does not constitute the initiation of force. In a state of nature, no two things are equal – if they were, they would be the same entity. Rocks are unequal in many qualities to flowers. It cannot be said that rocks and flowers are both equally hard, for example. This is inherently an amoral issue – morality cannot apply to that where there is no choice to make. Rocks do not force flowers to be different, it is simply the state of reality. In the same way, if one person is, say, taller than the other, it does not mean that the taller person is forcing the shorter person to be unequal in height, necessarily. The same goes for traits such as intelligence, beauty, &c.



If the taller person is not using force against the shorter person, would it then be moral for the shorter person to take a hacksaw and cut off part of the taller person’s legs, in the name of equality? No – just because of the fact that doing so would violate the rights of the taller man. This is what advocates of forced equality want – a hacksaw to every pair of legs, and a gun held to the heads of who try to resist.



This was fairly basic, but I think it laid the main ideas of my arguments out in an acceptable manner.


juras

Con

juras forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bossyburrito

Pro

My opponent forfeited - I'll wait to see if he comes back.
juras

Con

juras forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bossyburrito

Pro

My opponent forfeited - please just vote for a tie or don't vote at all. I don't deserve having this count towards my wins.
juras

Con

juras forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 3 years ago
bossyburrito
"Don't vote on this debate because of the ff"
And I got two votes giving me points for the ff, lol - what can you do.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
Lol, after I lost a debate on capitalism because a socialist voted that my arguments were too philosophical and should have focused on how 'unfair' things are I lost interest in what the vote concludes. Obviously I would view a revolution against an unequal society as self-defence.
Posted by bossyburrito 3 years ago
bossyburrito
Yeah, if the first round has definitions you disagree with, don't accept the challenge and just substitute your own definitions. Comment on the debate with any changes you want, or PM the challenger, or whatever else first.

I guess I could argue against that specific definition, since it would have been under the blanket definition I gave, anyway, but it's bad-mannered to do something like that.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Juras, I don't think that's how this works...
Posted by bossyburrito 3 years ago
bossyburrito
Wocambs: Either, assuming that the action was not taken in self-defence (so, a revolution against a genocidal government would be self-defence, while a revolution against a government that stays out of these things would be the use of force).

I don't think you could handle losing two debates to me at once, anyway :)
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
Aw, damn. I suppose it would have been strange to have two debates against you at once.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
By force do you mean via a revolution or via a government?
Posted by bossyburrito 3 years ago
bossyburrito
I'll definitely destroy whoever accepts, yes.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Accepting this debate is suicide...
Posted by bossyburrito 3 years ago
bossyburrito
I'm saying that it is never moral to initiate the use of force in order to achieve equality.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
bossyburritojurasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
bossyburritojurasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
bossyburritojurasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.