The Instigator
Axiom
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Numidious
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

It Is Unjust For Unwed, Reluctant Fathers To Be Coerced To Pay Child Support

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,441 times Debate No: 24890
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Axiom

Pro

Under U.S. law it is unjust to coerce an unmarried father who does not want a child (or anything to do with the child) to pay child support. I am Pro in this debate and the BOP will rest on me to prove why an unwed father who doesn't want a child should not be forced to pay child support by U.S. law. My opponent, Con, will offer rebuttal and assert that it is just for reluctant fathers to be coerced to pay child support. (Obviously we are avoiding circular reasoning such as: "It is just by law because it is law and law is just.")
Rules:
1. No semantics. Respect the intention of the debate.
2. 1R is for acceptance only. 2R I will present my argument and Con will offer rebuttal and Con's own arguments. 3R: rebuttal and defense, or new arguments. 4R. rebuttal and defense only, no new arguments.
3. Forfeits are automatic losses.

Definitions: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)(http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Unwed - of someone who has not been married.
Reluctant: 1. unwilling; disinclined: a reluctant candidate. 2. struggling in opposition.
Coerce: 1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document. 2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
Child Support: Money paid for the care of one's minor child, especially payments to a divorced spouse or a guardian under a decree of divorce.
Just: 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: 2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper.
Numidious

Con

I accept this challenge and look forward to an interesting, if somewhat unusual, debate. I would choose to take the position that if one brings a child into the world, it is just for one to pay for that child's existence, except where adoption or other such arrangements may be obtained.

This is essentially an issue that concerns gender equality - it is true that the female involved gives birth to the child, but both her and her husband are equally responsible for it's existence. To say that fathers should not pay child support or (similarly) help to raise the child would be unethical in and of itself, as the mother has little choice in the matter.

I shall assume that "child support" is something that occurs in the circumstance that the father has abandoned the child, otherwise it's meaning being that the father shall help raise the child. In this case, I wish the opposition luck (they'll need it on this seemingly uncontroversial topic) and look forward to an excellent debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Axiom

Pro

Hermann- Hope's Argumentation Ethics
Humans use argumentation as a method to settle disputes regarding rivalrous goods as opposed to the alternative method: violence. Once a person engages in discourse, he is accepting norms contingent to the basic norm of non-violent conflict resolution. We (Pro and Con) are engaging in argumentation instead of violence and are therefore accepting the presuppositions involved with engaging in argumentation. We assume initial freedom as two moral agents and by engaging in debate we are allowing that the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation. (To deny these norms would raise performative contradiction (saying something like, "I can't express arguments), and void this argument of meaning altogether.) For instance, I can't argue that violence is the correct means of conflict resolution because in doing so I am 'arguing' on behalf of violence and saying that the result of this discourse is meaningless. It is a performative contradiction.)
If we engage in debate rather than violence we are presupposing that both parties have private ownership. Because argumentation requires the active use of one's body, all universal norms for resolving conflicts over the human body except for self-ownership aren't consistent with argumentation.
Thus we establish, since we are debating, human's have property rights. And we are saying that it is irrational to deprive that human of such property rights (NonAgression Principle). If we say an unwed father has property rights over himself and by extension his labor (his money) we then conclude that you cannot deprive him of it without giving up our argument's basis in logic. We become irrational.

U.S. Law and Sex Not Being A Contract
In the U.S. it is legal to have an abortion for the reason of property rights. The government refuses to deny women their right to their property (themselves). A woman who wants an abortion has entered no contract with the fetus they are aborting and the fetus isn't wanted in the woman's womb, therefore she is given the legal right to dispel said fetus.

If that is a right afforded to women, why should the same right (property rights) not be afforded to unwed, unwilling fathers?
By having sexual intercourse with the mother, the father is not entering into contract for the resulting fetus (as shown by law in the argument above.) If it is not true for the mother, then logically it follows that sex doesn't constitute a contract for the father either. If the mother is capable of deciding to have the child, then she is also capable of deciding not to have the child. So I disagree with my opponent's statement that, "This is essentially an issue that concerns gender equality - it is true that the female involved gives birth to the child, but both her and her husband are equally responsible for it's existence. To say that fathers should not pay child support or (similarly) help to raise the child would be unethical in and of itself, as the mother has little choice in the matter." This statement is absolutely false. They are not equally responsible for its existence. The mother is solely responsible for its existence in the fact that she has the choice to abort the child. And the mother has COMPLETE choice in the matter.

A father has entered no contract with the mother or the fetus, and therefore his role or involvement with the fetus should not be constringent upon the woman's decision to abort or not to abort. Basically, a father doesn't suddenly get a bunch of responsibilities just because a mother decides to have the child. That is the mother's decision, as it is also her decision to not have the child. The child's rights (under a free society dedicated to equality) are not paramount to the mothers, and therefore cannot be paramount to the father's.
If the unwed father doesn't want the child, and sex is not a contract, then the father should not be coerced to pay child support by U.S. law.
Numidious

Con

I look forward to an interesting debate, and by the look of my opponent's introductory paragraphs, it would seem that I shall obtain one! The title "philosopher" on your account page is certainly well earned, and I had to fire up my laptop and spend a few moments idly in bed to come up with some of the answers for this particular discourse...

The first gap I could find in the argument made by the opposition is that "it is irrational to deprive that human of such property rights." On the contrary it is quite rational to deprive a human being of their property rights, even to themselves, under certain circumstances, circumstances which, I might add, the two participators in the debate are not engaged in. We assume, as the two participants in said debate, that we have property rights, but an individual who is willing to deprive another of THEIR rights to themselves obviously should not, and cannot otherwise the entire system of property rights would collapse. The non - aggression principle is also fallacious in that it often leads to greater amounts of violence. By not stopping a serial killer and depriving them of their rights to themselves, one may be putting many lives at stake, and thus CAUSING violence by our inaction. This is where, you could say, objectivism trumps libertarianism.

The non - aggression principle is a pre - supposition of argumentation in the sense of the argument itself, but it would seem highly irrational to (without any support whatsoever) extend the principles of that argumentation to all else. As humans, we adapt to the circumstances evident in our daily lives in different ways, therefore by not using violence (I prefer the term force, otherwise any relatively coercive activity, such as taxation, is considered "violence") to decide this debate we are using the non - aggression principle in this debate and nowhere else.

Yet I shall concede that a person does primarily have a right to their own property, including themselves, ASSUMING that conditions do not arise where deprivation of that property is necessary. I also concede that a fetus is not a human being until that fetus obtains consciousness, I shall accept that we are framing this argument in the context of American law (Canadian law is similar regardless) and I shall accept that in the US, a woman has reasonable access to abortion clinics.

However, this is where the rationalism of my opponent's argument stops, first of all, one must accept the emotional baggage of having an abortion, emotional baggage, by the way, that the would - be father does NOT have to partake in. However, assuming that emotional baggage is paid for in some way, what of belief? What if a woman believes that having an abortion will send her to hell - does she still have a choice in the matter of an abortion? Are there not other factors? Also, there are times at which an abortion is not available. However, assuming all these things are not true of a particular case, to have an abortion is an ACTION, therefore that action must RESULT from the woman's labour i.e. both her money and her time. All in all, an abortion, as most would accept, is not an activity that is taken likely under any circumstances. Assuming that the would - be father can pay for at least half of all this, what of fathers who abandon the child after it is born? Or after the obtainment of consciousness? I believe that you will find that a vast majority of cases fall under the above circumstances.

What the argument essentially must rest on, then, is that there is no contract made between two individuals when they have sex. A contract, by definition, is

"an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."

However, the doing or not doing of having a child really rests on whether the parents both know the possible consequences of the actions that they will perform - and they inevitably will in modern society, therefore they must agree to the possibility of having a child, as I'm certain a court would not require advanced psychologists to establish. Since they entered into a contract to possibly have a child, the question is whether that child is still owned by the mother after it is born, which the law clearly establishes it is not, as will be evident with laws concerning the rights of the child and such.

Who, therefore, is responsible for the child? In having intercourse, the parents entered into a contract that accepted the possibility of having a child, as they must, being grown adult human beings, (by the same ilk, by choosing this debate we entered into a contract to have a debate, and as I'm certain the opposition knows, contracts do not have to be legally on paper and neither do they have to be spoken) and that contract played out accordingly. WHERE the child was during the months that it was developing is of no consequence, only the fact that the said contract PRODUCED the child matters, i.e. we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, which makes sense in the real world.

Therefore, since a child is a human being, and two adult human beings have entered into a contract to create that human being, they share responsibility for it, regardless of where it has been or WHAT it has been. One example of how this plays out elsewhere might be this; let's say I give my friend a knife, knowing full well that that friend is in a fit of rage and headed off to a knife fight, (just because I'm vindictive and want to see some drama) that knife is now my friend's property, and he may or may not choose to draw it in the fight. HOWEVER, I know that my friend may very well draw it, and if it was discovered in court that I gave him the knife, knowing full well what he might do with it, there is not a shadow of a doubt that I would be criminally culpable.

Therefore, is is certainly NOT unjust for unwed, reluctant fathers to be coerced to pay child support, coercion happens all the time and is necessary, and the father knew that the child would exist as a result of a contract he participated in, so he can pay his fair share!
Debate Round No. 2
Axiom

Pro


I thank my opponent for his response and will address his arguments in order of appearance and then continue to defend mine.



Rebuttal:


"We assume, as the two participants in said debate, that we have property rights, but an individual who is willing to deprive another of THEIR rights to themselves obviously should not, and cannot otherwise the entire system of property rights would collapse."


In this sentence my opponent concedes the point that humans do indeed have property rights. And it is true that if one person deprives another by force of their rights, then he has forgone his own rights. But I am not asserting anything different to this. I am saying that an unwilling, reluctant father who has not entered under contract with the fetus or the mother is not depriving anyone of their rights and therefore his rights should not be deprived. Unless my opponent is asserting that a fetus has a right to the father's property, which in itself is a self refuting statement. No one has property rights to take another's property without contract or prior discourse (as per argumentation ethics).


And as for the non-aggression principle in relation to the serial killer parallel, I am afraid my opponent has missed the mark. "In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


"As humans, we adapt to the circumstances evident in our daily lives in different ways, therefore by not using violence to decide this debate we are using the non - aggression principle in this debate and nowhere else."

My opponent is once again mistaking the a priori founded non-aggression principle with pacifism. They are two very separate things. The point of argumentation ethics in relation to the non-aggression principle is if someone decides to forgo his rights of discourse by engaging in violence, then he will be treated the same way. He has not only dismissed his victims personal rights, but by ignoring discourse he has also dismissed his own.


"Yet I shall concede that a person does primarily have a right to their own property, including themselves, ASSUMING that conditions do not arise where deprivation of that property is necessary."


My opponent concedes that I am right about property rights. And as I have stated, the only situation where deprivation of property is necessary as allowed by argumentation ethics, is when someone forgoes their own rights to personal property by engaging in forceful action. An unwilling, reluctant father has taken no act to deprive another's liberty, he has merely exercised his own by copulating for pleasure. Therefore, one can conclude by my opponent's own concession that the father's property rights (labor, money, time) should therefore not be taken from him. I find that my opponent's concessions have already nullified his position and bolstered mine to the point of capitulation, but I will continue to debate for the sake of discourse.


"...the emotional baggage of having an abortion, emotional baggage, by the way, that the would - be father does NOT have to partake in."


Just because a father is incapable genetically of performing birth does not mean he should be accountable for a woman's decision based on social pressure or agenda to not have an abortion until late, or to feel bad about it if she does. A person's emotions do not determine logical conclusions. And the inequality of genetics cannot be rectified by law without impeding a person's liberty. (Ie. A woman has breasts. In sports it is more difficult to play when you have large breasts in front of you. Therefore all men should strap weights to their chest... This is a logical fallacy and completely absurd. My opponent is saying something similar. He is saying that because women are the only ones capable of going through birth, the man should be forced to suffer as well. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. I refer you to Hume's guillotine regarding all normative assertions.)


Also my opponent's arguments concerning a woman's religious beliefs are irrelevant. If she wants to suffer the burden of an unwanted child because she is scared of hell, then that is her prerogative. But her personal convictions do not have any effect on the unwilling reluctant father's civil liberty. If it did, we'd be living in a Theocracy.


"However, the doing or not doing of having a child really rests on whether the parents both know the possible consequences of the actions that they will perform," I assume my opponent means that if they have sex, both parents should be aware of the possible outcome. I agree. In this case the outcome is that the woman could get pregnant. She should be aware of that and because she should be aware of that it shouldn't matter if abortion (in some strange extreme scenario) is not an option. By your own logic, she knew the consequences, so she should have to deal with it. This isn't a matter of what is fair about genetics. You can't say (as I've stated before) that because men don't risk pregnancy during copulation they should suffer in some other way. (I refer you to my argument regarding breasts and sports). It once again, doesn't follow, by my opponent's own concessions, that civil liberty of a male should be actively deprived when he has committed no act of force or coercion himself. All he is guilty of is having sex, and under U.S. law this is not a crime and if it is consensual then it is not an act of force so we are still within the boundaries of argumentation ethics.


"Since they entered into a contract to possibly have a child." This is a baseless claim. My opponent is simply asserting his unfounded opinion as fact and therefore I will respond by saying: They entered into no such contract. They had sex. And as I have shown the law does give the rights of the child completely to the mother in her ability to terminate or keep it regardless of the father's wishes. And once again, we are discussing reluctant fathers. They do not want the child in the first place and are under no contract to the mother or fetus and by law the mother has control of the fetus.


What is a contract? A contract is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing, though contracts can be made orally. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


You cannot have a contract as my opponent asserts, "as I'm certain the opposition knows, contracts do not have to be legally on paper and neither do they have to be spoken." Neither of these constitute a contract so this dismisses my opponent's argument regarding contractual obligation on an unwilling father's part.


"two adult human beings have entered into a contract to create that human being," Once again my opponent makes an assertion that is disingenuous with his previous concessions and with argumentation ethics. Also, he has misunderstood what a 'contract' is.


His last allegory of using the 'knife' and vindictive friend is an attempt to create a strawman of the situation. 1. There is no violence involved. 2. No crime is being committed. 3. You knowing and intentionally providing for violence for your own vindictive pleasure which has no bearing whatsoever on the case at hand.


Through a combination of misunderstanding arguments, and misrepresenting others as well as providing baseless assertions, my opponent has failed to refute my points or defend his position. Most of my arguments have been agreed with by my opponent's concessions. And because he has failed to disprove my assertions regarding property rights, the non-aggression principle and argumentation ethics, he has conceded this debate.


Numidious

Con

On to round 2. Interesting rebuttal, although not, of course, introducing any new points. My opponent asserts that I "misrepresented arguments, misunderstood arguments, and provided baseless assertions," however, I shall here prove that that is not so and that furthermore these are activities engaged in by my opposition.

The opposition begins by stating that "I am saying that an unwilling, reluctant father who has not entered under contract with the fetus or the mother is not depriving anyone of their rights and therefore his rights should not be deprived," however, this is misrepresenting my own argument, which stated that property rights could be curtailed UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, and I did not limit those circumstances to an instance where an individual is depriving another of THEIR property rights. Anyhow, what are property rights? They are rights granted by law, and thus law may take them away if necessary. I agree that nobody has the right to take away another's property WITHOUT CONTRACT OR DISCOURSE, however, entering into the legal system (by being born) is a contract, and should be treated accordingly.

My opponent then states his next argument argument, saying that "And as for the non-aggression principle in relation to the serial killer parallel, I am afraid my opponent has missed the mark. "In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others." (http://en.wikipedia.org......)"

Then how, if it is matter of property rights, does one establish that the rights of the people the serial killer is killing are on a higher level than those of the serial killer? Doesn't a serial killer have rights? And if you kill the serial killer before he commits the crime, are you not compromising his rights? He hasn't actually committed the crime yet! Therefore, my argument against the non - aggression principle most assuredly stands.

"The point of argumentation ethics in relation to the non-aggression principle is if someone decides to forgo his rights of discourse by engaging in violence, then he will be treated the same way. He has not only dismissed his victims personal rights, but by ignoring discourse he has also dismissed his own."

Now we delve into the realm of opinion over what is right or wrong - surely my opponent would not initiate force against government because he was asked to pay his taxes - this is the iniation of force by a party to deprive another party of property rights, but it would irrational of my opponent not to pay his taxes in that case. That government has not dismissed the opponnent's right to himself or his property INSOFAR as that right can be upheld. Some things in life are necessary - but has a government dismissed it's right to existence because it initiated force? Certainly not. To say that one dismisses one's own rights when one dismisses another's is an opinion backed neither by reason nor the law. In real life, it all depends upon the circumstances.

"An unwilling, reluctant father has taken no act to deprive another's liberty, he has merely exercised his own by copulating for pleasure. Therefore, one can conclude by my opponent's own concession that the father's property rights (labor, money, time) should therefore not be taken from him."

Here my opponent's argument rests on previous fallacy - that the only reason property rights provided by law should be taken away is if they directly infringe upon the property rights of another individual, however, there are many indirect ways of causing problems in this world and there are many needs (both direct and indirect) that we rely on others for, including the government. Property is taken away from us all the time in the form of taxes. Even the most radical libertarians would agree that some form of taxation is necessary, otherwise the very system of property rights will collapse due to an end to law, order, and peace. Circumstances change the property rights granted to an individual by law, as has been said previously.

"Just because a father is incapable genetically of performing birth does not mean he should be accountable for a woman's decision based on social pressure or agenda to not have an abortion until late, or to feel bad about it if she does. A person's emotions do not determine logical conclusions. And the inequality of genetics cannot be rectified by law without impeding a person's liberty. (Ie. A woman has breasts. In sports it is more difficult to play when you have large breasts in front of you. Therefore all men should strap weights to their chest... This is a logical fallacy and completely absurd. My opponent is saying something similar. He is saying that because women are the only ones capable of going through birth, the man should be forced to suffer as well. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. I refer you to Hume's guillotine regarding all normative assertions.)"

I paste this entire response because there are several points where my opponent makes mistakes - first, he suggests that inequality cannot be rectified by law, and adds the analogy. On the contrary, rather than men having to wear weights strapped to their chests whilst playing in sports with women, women are given a separate league entirely more often than not. Also, politicians have been working for ages to mend gender inequality, and to say that the two are primarily unequal introduces bias, covered (in Canada) under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as impermissible.

Regardless, an abortion is an action, and actions have consequences, and these consequences must be taken into account. To not take them into account because "that is the way of things" would be like saying that there cannot be a woman's league, because the one sports league is good enough and if there are no women then too bad.

"What is a contract? A contract is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing, though contracts can be made orally. (http://en.wikipedia.org......)"

In this we have a difference in definition. I used the dictionary.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com...) of a contract, which is

"an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."

Therefore we have a difference in the definition of contract itself. However, my opponent's definition seems to me to be more in league with my argument that mine with theirs - Sex is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties or more, whether a child is a legal obligation is what we are trying to decide and said contract MAY have elements in writing, though contracts CAN be made orally. This seems to be more in tune, essentially, with my definition - the truth is that they are defining the same thing, but my opponent's wikipedia clipping is less brief!

My opponent continues to mention "(my) previous concessions and argumentation ethics," however, I have already shown that my opponent's views of argumentation ethics must be false and limited to argumentation, and my previous concessions include that adult human beings have property rights, (given to them, as all rights are, by laws and government) however, I have also stated that there are some instances where it is necessary to take some of ose rights away - this, to put it bluntly, is one of them.

My opponent states that the knife allegory is a strawman argument, however, by not helping a child our father has indirectly caused harm, just as one does by providing the knife. To contradict that inaction is decision is to contradict an earlier assertion that my opponent made - that it is equally a yes or no decision to have an abortion, and that the default is neither!

Therefore my opponent's points are entirely illogical, especially in the real world, where unsaid agreements are made daily and abortions do not occur by themselves!
Debate Round No. 3
Axiom

Pro

My opponent is very vehement in his defense and is sure in his beliefs, but unfortunately he misunderstands the things he has conceded and concedes things he has to hold on to for his debate to even stand. And I did not introduce any new points, as I simply extended my ones made previously which were not refuted or dismantled.


"...which stated that property rights could be curtailed UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, and I did not limit those circumstances to an instance where an individual is depriving another of THEIR property rights."


My opponent previously conceded the use of argumentation ethics and has made no argument against it. Argumentation ethics claims that you are limited to those circumstances. My opponent is presenting an addendum to argumentation ethics that becomes a performative contradiction. (Ie. In arguing for the use of force, one is engaging in discourse not force. Therefore the argument becomes meaningless.)


"Anyhow, what are property rights? They are rights granted by law, and thus law may take them away if necessary. I agree that nobody has the right to take away another's property WITHOUT CONTRACT OR DISCOURSE, however, entering into the legal system (by being born) is a contract, and should be treated accordingly."


Firstly, property rights are not rights granted by law according to argumentation ethics (something that has been conceded by my opponent and left without refutation.) Property rights are a priori assertions as per argumentation ethics via the non-aggression principle. So my opponent stating that the law may take them away if necessary is another statement that hinges upon his wrongful interpretation of the word, 'necessary.' Furthermore my opponent concedes that, "Nobody has the right to take another's property without contract or discourse..." And I challenge my opponent's assertion that being born is a contract as I have already defined a contract as a spoken or written agreement between two or more parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) As newborn is incapable of speech or writing, he is also incapable of contract. So according to my opponent's own concession, "Nobody has the right to take another's property without contract or discourse..." As a newborn is incapable of both, his assertions of birth being a contract is false and my opponent has thus conceded the debate.


"...does one establish that the rights of the people the serial killer is killing are on a higher level than those of the serial killer?"


No. But the serial killer forgoes his right to property rights via argumentation ethics once he engages in force rather than discourse.


"Doesn't a serial killer have rights? "


Yes. Until he dismisses his own rights and another's by engaging in violence.


"And if you kill the serial killer before he commits the crime, are you not compromising his rights?"


This is once again a contradiction. One is not a serial killer until he has committed the crimes (Three kills to be exact). And yes you would be compromising his rights if you kill the "serial killer". But my opponent is setting up a hastily configured strawman. I am not saying firstly that the serial killer should be killed. I am saying that he is not a serial killer until he commits a crime. And I am saying that you should never deprive anyone of their rights until they do engage in force rather than discourse.


"Therefore, my argument against the non - aggression principle most assuredly stands."


In accordance to this baseless assertion I shall simply respond thus: "No, it does not."


"Now we delve into the realm of opinion over what is right or wrong - surely my opponent would not initiate force against government because he was asked to pay his taxes - this is the iniation of force by a party to deprive another party of property rights, but it would irrational of my opponent not to pay his taxes in that case."


Yes we do indeed delve into the realm of opinion: my opponent's opinion to what is rational and just. Unfortunately, my opponent doesn't back his claims up with evidence, nor does he refute my initial premise to grant himself any traction. He also assumes what I would do in a given hypothetical. And simply because taxes are taken, it doesn't mean that it is just. My opponent is assuming I'm some quasi-utilitarian, when in fact my arguments have mostly been based on libertarian ideology. The only difference between mine, and my opponents' arguments is that I back my assertions up.


"Some things in life are necessary - but has a government dismissed it's right to existence because it initiated force?"


Another strawman. The government has not dismissed it's right to existence. It has dismissed it's right to discourse if it engages in force rather than argument as per, the yet unchallenged, argumentation ethics.


"To say that one dismisses one's own rights when one dismisses another's is an opinion backed neither by reason nor the law."


Another baseless assertion. Or, put simply: false. As shown in my previous arguments, one does dismiss his own rights when he engages in force rather than discourse. My opponent seems shaky on the details of Hermann-Hoppe's argumentation ethics, so I'll refer you to my very first paragraph of the rounds. It explains argumentation ethics.


My opponent states, "Even the most radical libertarians would agree that some form of taxation is necessary." FALSE. The most radical libertarians say the exact opposite. Some quasi -libertarians or generally-libertarians may concede a necessary tax.


"(The)very system of property rights will collapse due to an end to law, order, and peace." False. Argumentation ethics is an a priori concept. It is not contingent upon law, order or peace.


"Saying (men and women) are primarily unequal introduces bias..." Yes it does in the sense of rights. No it doesn't in simple biology. Women should not be forced to have a prostate exam just because men have to. Women should not have to pee standing up because men have to. And men should not be forced to suffer birth because women have to. It is a matter of genetics, not inequality.


My opponent's next paragraph uses a poor analogy (the sport's league) and tries to refute something that has already been established in the previous rounds (that abortion is also acceptable by U.S. law as per argumentation ethics and a right to one's body. I have established my axiom a priori through AE, NAP, and Property Rights. If my opponent wants to refute any of them, he needed to bring a counter axiom to the table. He has not and in the fourth round no new arguments are allowed beyond rebuttal and defense.)


My opponent is wrong in believing, in his paragraph about contracts, that my definition suits his argument. There was an agreement for sex, yes. But there was no agreement to take care of a child or have a child.


"I have already shown that my opponent's views of argumentation ethics must be false and limited to argumentation." No, my opponent has not. He has simply disagreed with it based on opinion and undefined presupposition without actually refuting anything.


In conclusion, I have made my argument supported by facts and logical conclusion stemming from an a priori of argumentation ethics that is proven to be universally true. My opponent has neither refuted, or questioned argumentation ethics, only misunderstood what they mean. I extend all my arguments that as-of-yet remain untainted. My opponent has stated his opinion multiple times, has told us what ought to be from what is (I refer you once again to Hume's Guillotine,) and he has asserted that because injustice exists, it is just.


Voters, simply read through the debate and it will be clear that you should vote for "Pro."



Numidious

Con

My opponent is also vehement in his defense of argumentation ethics and of his assertion that I have conceded the debate, but apparently misunderstood what I was conceding. I have certainly not conceded this debate nor have I heard answers that would seem to aptly defend against my various criticisms of my opponent's overall argument.

I have previously refuted my opponent's baseless claims that the use of argumentation rather than force means that argumentation must therefore be used in all situations. This is not true in the real world and probably will never be - force must be used in some instances, just as argumentation must be used in others. It is not a "performative contradiction" as my opponent claims because we are, by arguing the topic as compared to using force to achieve higher ends, performing different acts!

For instance, let's take the actions of Nelson Mandela's organization, the ANC. Does the fact that the ANC used violence preclude negotiations between the ANC and the apartheid regime? Does the fact that Syrian leader Bashar Al - Assad has massacred many of his people mean that negotiating with him to stop the violence is irrational? I fear that if we were to be guided by my opponent's unsupported views of argumentation ethics, our world would be in a very bad situation indeed!

The next part of my opponent's argument relies upon the first, which has already been refuted. My opponent therefore has no refutation for the fact that property rights (including those to ourselves) are provided by government, in the constitution in America's case and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada's. My opponent has not attempted to dispute my own dictionary definition of contract nor my interpretation of his wikipedia clipping, so I'll let them stand.

"This is once again a contradiction. One is not a serial killer until he has committed the crimes (Three kills to be exact). And yes you would be compromising his rights if you kill the "serial killer". But my opponent is setting up a hastily configured strawman. I am not saying firstly that the serial killer should be killed. I am saying that he is not a serial killer until he commits a crime. And I am saying that you should never deprive anyone of their rights until they do engage in force rather than discourse. "

If one is to take my opponent's logic at it's most stringent, one is to believe that it would be immoral to stop a serial killer from committing his crimes! After all, you're initiating force before s/he is. Say you're in a house, the serial killer walks in, and you, knowing he is a serial killer, or at least someone who intends to kill you, shoot him in self defense. Does that make you the killer? As my opponent has already stated, the serial killer has not initiated force yet, but you have. Have you forgone your right to live because you defended yourself? I leave that to readers of this debate to decide.

"And simply because taxes are taken, it doesn't mean that it is just. My opponent is assuming I'm some quasi-utilitarian, when in fact my arguments have mostly been based on libertarian ideology. The only difference between mine, and my opponents' arguments is that I back my assertions up."

My opponent once more relies upon the non - aggression principle, which has already been proven to be fallacious, therefore I redirect readers of the debate to my criticisms of that principle. My opponent's next criticisms of my analogies are also backed by his assertions in terms of argumentation ethics, and once more I redirect readers to my criticisms of argumentation ethics and the non - aggression principle.

My opponent continues to make assertions of his own opinions on libertarianism. Then we get here...

"False. Argumentation ethics is an a priori concept. It is not contingent upon law, order or peace."

However, to follow argumentation ethics to it's furthest, one must admit that it would affect law, order, and peace if one accepted it to be true, as I stated previously.

" "Saying (men and women) are primarily unequal introduces bias..." Yes it does in the sense of rights. No it doesn't in simple biology. Women should not be forced to have a prostate exam just because men have to. Women should not have to pee standing up because men have to. And men should not be forced to suffer birth because women have to. It is a matter of genetics, not inequality. "

My opponent's examples are irrelevant, because they are not things that both male and female are contributing to, they are solely restricted to gender - specific issues. If both male and a female contributed to a male's having to urinate standing up, then surely the female would have to take into account whatever she was doing that caused the male to have to urinate standing up just as he would have to. However, for the most part, my opponent's analogies deal with issues that do not have shared responsibility.

"My opponent is wrong in believing, in his paragraph about contracts, that my definition suits his argument. There was an agreement for sex, yes. But there was no agreement to take care of a child or have a child."

Since we're being stringent about concessions in this debate, I might point out that my opponent conceded that there WAS a contract involved in having sex. One of the products of that contact, as any grown adult should know, is the possibility of having a child. It is implicit, just as it is implicit if you buy cocaine from a drug cartel that you may use the cocaine, and if it wasn't, then drug cartel's should not be held accountable for selling cocaine in the first place! The same can be seen in other parts of law in terms of stolen items, which you must give up even if you only suspected that they were stolen. I repeat - we have responsibility for our actions/contracts.

"In conclusion, I have made my argument supported by facts and logical conclusion stemming from an a priori of argumentation ethics that is proven to be universally true."

Universally true? I certainly don't see argumentation ethics being applied in the real world, and if they were many problems would result, as I have shown.

"My opponent has neither refuted, or questioned argumentation ethics, only misunderstood what they mean. I extend all my arguments that as-of-yet remain untainted."

I fully understand argumentation ethics, and have criticized them accordingly.

My opponent has stated his opinion multiple times, has told us what ought to be from what is (I refer you once again to Hume's Guillotine,) and he has asserted that because injustice exists, it is just."

have not stated that because injustice exists, it is just, I have merely criticized my opponent's views on why he believes such things are unjust.

In closing, I refer to what my opponent said earlier, which is this. "I have established my axiom a priori through AE, NAP, and Property Rights. If my opponent wants to refute any of them, he needed to bring a counter axiom to the table." If one contemplates this for a second, one realizes that this is a false assumption. All one has to do is to DISPROVE the points one's opponent has made, and although my opponent has made some excellent points, I believe that I have refuted them correctly. Since refutation is to prove the opposite of a point (i.e. if someone disproves that I am the king of Spain, they prove that I am NOT the king of Spain) I have correctly made counterpoints without counter - axioms.

Therefore, I urge the audience to vote for con, as they must given con's refutations of pro's arguments, but more importantly I thank my worthy opponent for an interesting debate and the (very patient) audience for taking the time to read it!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
"you two are obviously both very skilled, and I'm looking forward to reading future debates." - thanks :)

"this didn't hold up under Pro's examples of US law when it applies to women having abortions."

But of course once the child is born it is no longer the property of the mother - surely it is a human being created by two individuals who entered into a contract.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Just going to put this in before the CVBers:
Even though Con argued that agreeing to have sex means that you're agreeing to take the risks, this didn't hold up under Pro's examples of US law when it applies to women having abortions.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
This is one of the hardest judgements I've made on a debate. I had to go back and re-read each of your arguments. Ultimately, although a few of Pro's claims (like the non-aggression principle) were a little far-fetched and didn't apply, the winning argument in my eyes was that of parental obligation to the fetus. Pro's argument that a father has no more of an obligation to the fetus than the mother ultimately won the debate in my eyes, as it showed that there isn't a justified reason to force the father to pay child support. I'd like to congratulate both debators, you two are obviously both very skilled, and I'm looking forward to reading future debates.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
Hmm - looks like we'll have a tie.
Posted by mark.marrocco 4 years ago
mark.marrocco
Your logic was fairly valid, Axiom, but your premises were a little too far-fetched to be totally relevant to the matter at hand. Obviously, it's unfeasible to think that anyone could be totally objective, but I can say fairly confident that I'm as close as you're going to get. I'm also new at this voting thing, and maybe am not as good as following the threads as I could be yet, but that doesn't mean I have to justify my justification to the participants.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
Interesting. That's probably more just than a debate between the rights of the parents.
Posted by WMdebate 4 years ago
WMdebate
Sorry meant to say "...how those factors are applied on a case by case basis."
Posted by WMdebate 4 years ago
WMdebate
One thing I'd like to note, which I didn't see mentioned, is that under US family law (in most states) most issues of child support and custody are governed by the so called "Best Interests of the Child" standard. This is a legal standard which generally takes into account things like the wealth and income of each parent, genetic relationship to the child, parental relationship to the child by each parent, etc. It is within the discretion of the judge to determine how those factors are The decisions in family law are greatly skewed towards obtaining a result that is best for the child, with the interests and desires of the parents being a factor, but a secondary concern. This is also the standard advocated by the UN and most international courts.

Check out:
http://www.childwelfare.gov...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
The post - debate competition increases :)

In response to Axiom, then...

1. But as has been pointed out by Mark, justice is certainly NOT defined by argumentation ethics! There are some instances where it is certainly more "just" to deprive someone of some property rights, even when they haven' resorted to violence. As I say, if we were to apply these ethics of argumentation everywhere, which we do not, blackmail/threatening would be legal, as well as ordering henchmen to attack someone! Now surely that is not "just."

2/3. The response was originally that sex is an unsaid contract (see dictionary.com definition of contract) and that a child resulted from that sex, and since we know that both parents are equally involved in sex, they both created the child. Abortion is an action that has repercussions on a mother and I don't think anyone would say that it is the 'default' choice in any sense of the word.

The dictionary.com definition of contract is...

an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

And that is what sex is. Mark proved below that he voted with the arguments that made more sense, but more importantly, the rules are that he didn't have to say why he voted one way or another, the same standards are used with juries in courtrooms. Lastly, argumentation ethics is in itself a "moral" argument. You must agree that all legal disputes are rooted in morality of some kind - even if it is property "rights," so, since we're dealing with contradictions in terms of argumentation ethics, I might accuse the opposition of a verbal contradiction - argumentation ethics is a "moral" argument, but apparently my use of "moral" or "ethical" arguments to go against it is wrong!

The last snippet claims that Mark agrees with me because he already agreed - I urge the audience to read his points and decide that for themselves.

p.s. I love it when debates go to the comments section
Posted by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
1. Argumentation ethics is the standard by which one can judge 'justice.' It is an a priori assertion and not only for 'argumentation.'
2. I never argued that a sperm and an egg together don't create a fetus. I argued that the responsibility of a child being born is dependent on the mother's decision, and hers only, under U.S. law.
3. Con didn't. Contract is either oral or written. Sex is neither. You seem to be assuming what you want because it is in accordance with what you believe.
4. This works once argumentation ethics is established and left unrefuted. Which it was and they weren't.

This is just a case of someone voting the way they believe. Which becomes tiring. My argumentation ethics assertions were left unrefuted. Both Mark and Con misinterpret or don't understand what argumentation ethics are. I explained it very succintly and provided a link to dissuade any further confusion. Con raised a lot of 'moral' claims and what 'ought' to be claims. The father 'ought' to be held equally responsible. But I provided discourse to suggest why this isn't the case.

Mark.marrocco agrees with Con, we know that. But he can't just agree with Con's position, he has to find merit in Con's arguments and rebuttals. Anyone that read the debate objectively can see that this was a Pro win.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
AxiomNumidiousTied
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 debate. The two arguments that it came down to for me were the father's obligation to suffer for the mother's choice on abortion, and intercourse being a contract. It is extremely close, but I think Con's argument that intercourse is a contract, and by entering into it, the father is agreeing to the possibility of a child, did it for me so I am going to have to give arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
AxiomNumidiousTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments
Vote Placed by mark.marrocco 4 years ago
mark.marrocco
AxiomNumidiousTied
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: See Comments.
Vote Placed by ldcon 4 years ago
ldcon
AxiomNumidiousTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate! I guess I see Con making an error in allowing Pro to conflate the option of abortion with the option of child support. Once it's been made...I vote Pro.