The Instigator
DetectableNinja
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
000ike
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

I will not contradict myself (part 2)

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 5 votes the winner is...
000ike
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,320 times Debate No: 18468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

DetectableNinja

Pro

Continuation of the debate Ike and I just finished. This time I shall come under scrutiny. Exact same setup and rules as before:


1. Pro reserves the right not to provide an opinion to a question, but he must respond to it. Pro will only use this power in circular questions.

2. Nothing outside of the text of this debate can be subject to contradiction.

3. Con will ask questions for rounds 1 and 2. Round 3 is for conclusions.
000ike

Con

1. Do all human beings have the same human rights?

2. Should an adult have control over another adult, even when there is no threat of violence, or prevention of violence in doing so?

3. Should drugs remain illegal in the United States?

----Sub 3. If the above answer is no, then please explain why in 1 or 2 sentences.

4. Define "society" in your own words.

5. Can society decide rules for itself through majority?

6. Do you agree with democracy?

7. If the majority of society does not want something, can it ban that thing from society ALWAYS, even when it impedes upon the rights of some?

8. Should it be illegal to eat cats and dogs in the United States?

9. Can anything other than an INDIVIDUAL human being, have a natural right?

10. Can an individual/individuals' liberty, supercede the happiness of the majority of society, in terms of value and power?

Debate Round No. 1
DetectableNinja

Pro

1. I believe that, initially (meaning by birth), all humans have the same initial human rights.

2. I believe that control over another adult depends on the situation.

3. I do not believe that drugs should remain illegal.

Sub 3. I believe that the maintenance of drugs as illegal is not only an encroachment upon personal liberty, but has a higher net detriment than benefit.

4. In my opinion, society is the collective community of humans (or humanity, if one were to be speaking on a broader scale) living together.

5. I would say that a society CAN rule by majority ("can" in the sense of being ABLE to do something).

6. I agree AND disagree with democracy, based on the implementation of the system.

7. Again, a majority of society is indeed ABLE to do so. So, yes, I'd say a society CAN do it.

8. I do not believe it should be illegal to eat cats and dogs in the United States of America.

9. I do not believe that anything other than an individual human being has an inherent, natural right.

10. Once more, an individual's happiness CAN supercede the happiness of the majority (to be explicit, I am saying that these things, #5, 8, and 10, CAN happen, not stating whether I think they SHOULD happen).
000ike

Con

Please try to avoid answering "yes and no" to questions, as that is the equivalent of denying the question entirely, which is only permitted for logically circular questions.

1. SHOULD a society decide rules for itself through majority?

2. Are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all "INITIAL human rights"?

----Sub 2. If no, then which one(s) is/are not?

3. Do you believe in Deontological ethics?

4. Is an early term abortion immoral?

5. Define human being. (your definition cannot be "a member of...." or any varient)

6. Should society outlaw things that it perceives (in the majority sense) as threats to its prosperity?

7. Is it immoral to burn flags?

8. Are you a libertarian?

9. Do you believe in Utilitarianism?

10. Should society outlaw things that it perceives (in the majority sense) to be immoral?

11. Should society outlaw murder? (when it is something it perceives, in the majority sense, to be immoral)
Debate Round No. 2
DetectableNinja

Pro

1. I believe majority rule is acceptable under two conditions: I only support majority rule thorugh a Republican form of government, and only so long as humans' natural (and thus legally given) rights are ensured.

2. I do not believe they are (but only technically).

Sub 2. I say no because I believe pursuit of happiness is encompassed in liberty. I believe that, in genera terms, our initial rights are "life, liberty and property."

3. In the sense of human rights, I do believe in deontological ethics. In the way of an objective moral value, I do not.

4. I do not believe early term abortion is immoral.

5. A human is a fully formed and thinking individual homo sapien.

6. Same reasoning as in 1: I believe that yes, they should, so long as no human rights are severely infringed upon.

7. I do not believe it is immoral to burn flags.

8. I do indeed consider myself to be a libertarian.

9. I do not believe in total utilitarianism--the sense that the group's needs are more important than the individual's.

10. Same reasoning as 1 and 6: Although I do not believe anything is inherently immoral, I belive a society should be able to do this, so long as no human rights have been severely infringed upon.

11. Using the current definition of murder, I do believe that a society should outlaw murder.

000ike

Con

A formidable opponent indeed. I do, however, believe I have found a contradiction in the midst of his answers.


Contradiction in Quote Form

Statement A.
"I do not believe that anything other than an individual human being has an inherent, natural right."


Statement B.
"Although I do not believe anything is inherently immoral..."


Contradiction Explained

I contend that in order for one to believe in a natural human RIGHT, he also transitively believes in the inherent morality or immorality of actions. The implication of a right is that it is BY NATURE owed and respected, hence "inherent". An action would therefore be inherently immoral if it impedes on inherent rights (without sufficient justification).
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Why did I lose conduct?
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Yeah I agree with F-16. Its basically impossible for Pro to win if he doesn't get a chance to defend himself.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Good debate, but I believe it would have been a lot better if Con had pointed out the contradictions earlier, given Pro a chance to respond and refute that.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
DetectableNinja000ikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Very nice contradiction brought up from Con...True, in order to consider nothing inherently immoral, one would have to disregard anything that impeded with an inherent right...something that Pro wrote, earlier on, that he did consider...
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
DetectableNinja000ikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Contradiction, but there should be more rounds for the conclusion of CON proving the Contradiction and PRO for his defense.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
DetectableNinja000ikeTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: A fairly close debate, but Con did show that to believe that a human being has inherent rights, Pro must also believe in inherent morality.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
DetectableNinja000ikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Clear contradiction.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
DetectableNinja000ikeTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: It was tough to decide on this one as I was not sure on DN's meaning of "I do not consider anything inherently immoral", but I will give Con my vote.