Impromptu Video Debate

Your accent is awesome. It reminds me of Flight of the Conchords!

Fair enough. I don't agree in the slightest, but I'm too tired to contest your decision.
Stupid ACT xD

Zaradi, I felt bad that I forgot to respond to that point about lethality directly. I wanted to relate it to my point about prevention - you wouldn't be a domestic abuser in the first place in "my world". Also, it's not like the victim's going to say "hey, if you keep abusing me I'll kill you" because of that fear I talked about. But you're right, when I noticed I'd forgotten that point, I was like 4:45 into my speech, I was suddenly totally hoping that the prevention point stood because otherwise my case would be pretty screwed. To add insult to my injury, I'd made both of my rebuttals before in different contexts, I only had to relate them correctly, so it was really frustrating that I forgot. Really sorry.

Larz explains that it seems unfair to presuppose certain rights, in our case, a "right" to life. Furthermore he argues that your moral system is dangerous as excluding certain actions from ever taking place is irresponsible as it restricts the domain of the set of realizable actions to either solve or ameliorate the problem.

As far as I can tell, your answer was just that your position is more peaceful because it is, in principle, less violent. This doesn't address the issue larz brought up which was that what you are proposing is more DANGEROUS, as actions should always be considered within their respective contexts before any moral judgements are made. That is to say, your system demonstrates a myopia when considering morally condemnable actions, this is dangerous and grounds for the rejection of your system.

Moreover, I found Lars' argument concerning the decline in the rate of both domestic violence and murder more convincing. The psychological motive works better to describe human behavior under lars' model.

Okay. So the debate really ended up coming down to Larz's arguments against the Other and my arguments against his system.

On the Other debate, he essentially advanced two arguments throughout the entire debate. 1) That affirming would allow the majority of people's relationships with the Other to be preserved, while only violating one person's relationship with the Other. I responded to it by saying that our openess with the Other wasn't measured by a utilitarian standard, but rather it's a "if you have it, then we are obligated to protect it" kind of deal. 2) ....I know he made a second argument, and I know I responded to it, but I can't remember what it was for the life of me. I'll have to go back and re-watch it, and I'll get back to you on this point.

On Larz's plan, my argument was that if we actually followed his plan and allowed the victims to fight back and attempt to kill their abusers, it would only give added insentive for the abusers to further increase the severity and lethality of their abuse to the point where it would become either mentally or physically impossible for them to actually act on the plan. If it was responded to, I never heard where.

Please, explain. I admit, it was hard to understand what you were trying to say at times.

Glad to know you didn't actually listen to a thing said...-.-

Zaradi never answers Pro's argument that Con's ethics are dangerous and shouldn't be accepted. Zaradi decides to entertain Pro's ethical system and provides a failing argument in that it's impossible to say how presenting the threat of deadly force will effect the rate of domestic violence in a society. Since the rest just seems to be Pro and Con talking past each other, I give my vote to Lars since his argument against Con's ethical system went unchallenged.

Dude, awesome accent. lol

Awesome.