Does Palestine Deserve autonomy
Debate Rounds (4)
Greetings. I, first, will concede all of Pro's political claims.
My argument will be divided in two; first, an explanation on what makes an inference valid, and second, a application of this to my opponent's argument.
Premises are statements of something we take as self-evident or simply assume. An inference can be made when all the premises follow through properly. An example:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
A statement is valid not only when the logic is correct, but when the premises are themselves truthful. When making ethical statements, the validity of such a statement is dependent upon some fundamental value. Hence, the justifications are hierarchical; the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ad infinitum. Such statements as "killing is wrong" require the support of broader ethical assumptions, such as "human life has value."
What Pro has not done here is proved the validity of a self-evident imperative from which a proper ethical framework could be derived. If we go down the chain of justifications, we have to reach an axiom eventually, but we don't really have any reason to accept that axiom as true or non-subjective. Therefore, it seems my erstwhile opponent must demonstrate his particular frameowork to be valid before he can prove that Palestine deserves autonomy.
I await Pro's response.
As much as I'm impressed with my opponents's knowledge in the field of Syllogism: I wish not for a mistake in the wording of this question, divert a debate firmly rooted in political sediment to a philosophical discussion on axioms, inferences and premises. He accepted this debate on Palestine; Taking the debate off like this on a tangent is misleading and counter-productive to my initial intentions. If my opponent wishes to have a discourse on philosophy I will happily oblige, but only on another debate clearly outlining such in its title. However I will present the 'framework' he wishes, which to be fair to him is a valid gripe: for if this topic is to be of any intellectual coherence it must have an Archimedean point for it to be analysed from; For me this is that "Exceeding state oppression on a group of peoples' must be assuaged, in the name of liberty and social emancipation" (This relates to their lives inherent value both collectively and individualistically); In this case I see the granting of deserved sovereignty the way to achieve such. I hope this ethical criterion satisfies my opponent. In my view the Palestinian people have both a philanthropic, cultural and historic right to be independent of the regime of Botha... oh wait no Benjamin Nenanthyu (Freudian slip). I avidly await my opponent's response, and implore him to not lead this debate down a road of jargon which will be in dissonance with the overt political tone of this piece.
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."- Albert Cammus
I thank my opponent for his response.
My opponent's rebuttal can be summed up as follows: he started this debate with a political tone in mind, so I should simply go ahead and make the moral assumptions he wants to have a meaningful political debate instead arguing with him over the fundamental question of why anything should happen at all.
Regardless, I think that my argument is still untouched. Pro again makes an unsubstantiated moral assertion: that I should change my argumentation to reflect his intentions. He provided reasons as to why I should do so (that it would be "counter-productive and misleading" to continue to argue from a metaethical standpoint), but this seems to beg the question. My opponent's argument assumes that there is good reason to not derail the debate with semantic quibbling, but no real moral imperative is argued for; hence, I see no reason not go right ahead and continue.
I have still shown that my Pro's arguments do not meet the resolution. None of my opponent's reasons show that Palestine should, in any real sense, receive autonomy (which is itself giving him the benefit of the doubt, as the title was worded as a question and no definition of "Palestine" is given) and therefore the resolution is effectively negated.
As of now, it sadly appears that my Pro has deactivated his account. I hope that he will be back as I have enjoyed the debate thus far.
Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.
ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
Sadly, my opponent has forfeited the last round. My arguments extend.
ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
Who are you to start a debate on this website, vomit out a bunch of claims (written in the grammar and spelling of a typical third-grader) with no arguments whatsoever, giving us 2,000 characters to answer them, all the while dripping with your own self-assurance? "Knowledge of syllogism?" Do you think this site is for people like you to masturbate to yourselves? Go back to posting your rants on Youtube comment sections, and don't clutter up DDO with your nonsense. The same goes for people like jat93 and every other user who comes on here thinking that the site revolves around them, when in reality they're so deeply entrenched in what Julian Sanchez referred to as epistemic closure that they can't grasp the magnitude of their own stupidity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: F/F. And although no sources were presented, I feel two or more forfeited rounds warrants votes all across the board automatically, from the standpoint of debate policy.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.