The Instigator
yuiru
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
00
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

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 1 vote the winner is...
00
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,199 times Debate No: 27634
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

yuiru

Pro

In this debate:

Pro will be arguing, that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

Con will not be arguing, that pro will not be arguing, that it is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified.

Rules of the debate #1:
  1. follow the rules of debate which are:
  1. follow the rules of the debate:
  1. Do not break the rules of debate
  2. Do not attempt to break the rules of debate
  3. Do not break the rule about not breaking the rules in an attempts to break rules which include the following:
  1. Breaking the rules.
  2. Intentionally argue plainly the morality of using babies for slave labor beyond reasonable limits instead of the arguable morality of said morality.
  3. Accepting the debate with a full understanding about what you are debating.
  4. Cheating.
Rules of the debate #2:
  1. Best floccinaucinihilipilification of opponents argument wins.

Rules of the debate #3:

You may change the definition of a word in the resolution at anytime in the debate, as long as it:

  1. Fits the grammar.
  2. Is from some dictionary.
  3. Is being used to bias the resolution argument in your favor.

Rules of debate #4:
  1. You don't have to follow the rules.
  2. Practicing the above rule is strictly prohibited.

First round is for acceptance, if you want.
00

Con

I accept. What follows is a translation of Pro's post into English for the benefit of the voters:

In this debate:

Pro will be arguing that Con is making a claim.
Pro must show that Con is making the following claim to win the debate:
It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

Con will not deny that Pro is not making a specific claim.
Con must not deny that Pro is not making the following claim to win the debate:
It is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified.

Rules of the debate #1:
Do not intentionally argue plainly the morality of using babies for slave labor beyond reasonable limits
Rules of the debate #2:
Best floccinaucinihilipilification of opponents argument wins.
Rules of the debate #3:
You may change the definition of a word in the resolution at anytime in the debate, as long as it:
Fits the grammar.
Is from some dictionary.
Is being used to bias the resolution argument in your favor.

However, it is the voters' job to decide whether to accept definitions from Pro or Con, when both sides offer definitions.
Debate Round No. 1
yuiru

Pro

I'm afraid con has not "translated" Pro's post accurately.
"Pro must show that Con is making the following claim to win the debate"
"Con must not deny that Pro is not making the following claim to win the debate"
Pro WILL be arguing, just that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. But pro doesn't have to SHOW anything but It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified..
Con will not be arguing, just that pro will not be arguing, that it is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. But con can deny anything they want. Con only has to show it is not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.


These are the three anamolies:

1.

The con is contending to the pros position in the debate.

Con wins.

Therefore con has defeated the pro.

2.

Premise 1:

The con does not understand premise 1.

The pro does not understand premise 2.

Therefore the con has won.

Premise 2:

There is only one argument.

If there is only one argument, there is no longer an argument.

Therefore the argument is gone.

Premise 3:

Premise 3 is that of premise 1.

Premise 2 is that of 1.

Therefore premise 3 and 2 are that of 1.




The pro has argued.

Con has won, vote con.





00

Con

"The pro has argued."

1. Pro has not argued "just that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified." Pro must argue this, otherwise Pro will not be following the following rule: "Pro will be arguing, that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified," and thus Con will automatically win.

2. Also, even assuming that "Pro doesn't have to SHOW anything but It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified,"" Pro still loses, since Pro has not shown (or even attempted to argue) that "It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified."

3. Con has not violated the following statement: "Con will not be arguing, just that pro will not be arguing, that it is arguable that not arguing, "it is immoral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified."

4. "Con only has to show it is not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified."

a. Using babies for slave labor is not morally justified (http://www.antislavery.org...; see The Conventions of the International Labour Organization, 1926 and 1956 Slavery Conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)

b. Moral people commit morally justified acts.

c. Thus, convincing moral people that immoral acts are morally justified can cause them to commit these immoral acts.

d. Encouraging or tricking moral people into committing immoral acts is not morally justified.

e. Therefore convincing moral people that immoral acts can be morally justified is not morally justified.

f. To argue that an immoral act is morally justified, one must dispute that the immoral act is necessarily immoral.

g. Claiming that an immoral act can be morally justified, is not morally justified (this follows from (e)).

h. Therefore, arguing that an immoral act is morally justified in not morally justified.

i. Therefore, arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified.

j. Statements that are known to be either true or false are not arguable by definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...).

k. Therefore, it not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

"These are the three anamolies: [...] Con has won, vote con."

Since Con has won, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
yuiru

Pro

2. Also, even assuming that "Pro doesn't have to SHOW anything but It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified,"" Pro still loses, since Pro has not shown (or even attempted to argue) that "It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified."

This is based on the following assumption:

Pro has not argued.

"However pro has said, this is what I would argue is consistently arguable, quoting myself:" The pro argues, that arguing in and of itself is an argument, thus for it to be aruguable that arguing that babies used in slavelabor to be morally justified is to be morally justified it would have to have to be a fact that it is immoral to argue that babies be used in slavelabor, thus making any arguments null void." , Is what I was thinking of writing.

But here it is closed case:

Babies = human offspring

immorality = immoral

arguable = able to be argued

Premise 1:

Con is arguing that it is not arguable, con is also arguing it is not morally justified

Premise 2:

arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not an act in regards to morality, but an act in regards to truth.

Premise X: arguing is not necessarily convincing.

Premise 3:

inherently, just because it can be consider morally wrong to hold the position that using babies in slave labor is morally justified, does not mean the counterpart arguing to argue such things is justifiable under a moral code, is not by necessity an immoral conjunction. This is a compositional fallacy.

Premise 4:

Con has argued.

Premise 5:

Con concludes statements that are known to be either true or false are not arguable by definition

Premise 6:

The argument that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified, has not been proven as false by con.

Conclusion:

Therefore it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor"

Actual conclusion:

Therefore pro has argued.


"Since Con has won, vote Con."

Con has won but that doesn't mean con IS WINNING.




The pro has ARGUED!!!





00

Con

"The pro has argued."

Definitions:

arguable = that which can be plausibly or convincingly argued (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Note that the words "plausibly" and "convincingly" suggest that only statements that are somewhat controversial (meaning a significant amount of people disagree with) are arguable. Statements accepted by most of society are not considered arguable, even if they are later proven false. For example, it used to be undisputed/unarguable that the Sun revolved around the Earth (and not the other way around).

immoral = contrary to established moral principles; transgressing accepted moral rules (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Note that the words "established" and "accepted" suggest that if most people believe that it is immoral to use babies for slave labor, then it is immoral to use babies for slave labor, regardless of what a small dissenting minority thinks. Morality may change depending upon the time; when asking if something is immoral (without explicitly specifying a time period), however, the current time period is implicitly assumed.

Point 4a still stands: Right now, using babies for slave labor is not morally justified (http://www.antislavery.org...; see The Conventions of the International Labour Organization, 1926 and 1956 Slavery Conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)

Also, "Premise X [that] arguing is not necessarily convincing" is irrelevant. For Pro to win the debate, Pro must not only argue but also convince voters of the resolution. In this specific debate, the only way for Pro to win is by convincing voters that "It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

"Premise 2: "arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not an act in regards to morality, but an act in regards to truth" is incorrect. Arguing it is moral to use babies for slave labor is an act in regards to truth; however, it is also an act in regards to morality. In other words, deceiving people into committing immoral, destructive acts is immoral. This is point 4e. For example, it is immoral to give people a bottle containing poison and convince them to drink it by claiming that there is only water inside. Similarly, it is immoral to convince moral people that they can use babies for slave labor and remain moral, when society will consider them as immoral if they do use babies for slave labor.

Premise 3: "inherently, just because it can be consider morally wrong to hold the position that using babies in slave labor is morally justified, does not mean the counterpart arguing to argue such things is justifiable under a moral code, is not by necessity an immoral conjunction. This is a compositional fallacy." This is not the compositional fallacy - I have logically shown how it is immoral in point 4. Unless Pro can dispute a specific subpoint, Con wins this point.

Premise 6: "The argument that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified, has not been proven as false by con." Pro has ignored point 4. Thus Con's argument remains intact.

Point 4 (which was made in the last round) is as follows:

4. "Con only has to show it is not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified."

a. Using babies for slave labor is not morally justified (http://www.antislavery.org......; see The Conventions of the International Labour Organization, 1926 and 1956 Slavery Conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)

b. Moral people commit morally justified acts.

c. Thus, convincing moral people that immoral acts are morally justified can cause them to commit these immoral acts.

d. Encouraging or tricking moral people into committing immoral acts is not morally justified.

e. Therefore convincing moral people that immoral acts can be morally justified is not morally justified.

f. To argue that an immoral act is morally justified, one must dispute that the immoral act is necessarily immoral.

g. Claiming that an immoral act can be morally justified, is not morally justified (this follows from (e)).

h. Therefore, arguing that an immoral act is morally justified in not morally justified.

i. Therefore, arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified.

j. Statements that are known to be either true or false are not arguable by definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com......).

k. Therefore, it not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

To summarize, Pro has not shown "it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified." Also, Pro must respond to point 4, otherwise voters cannot in good conscience use their vote to express approval of child slavery.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
yuiru

Pro

yuiru forfeited this round.
00

Con

Remember, as explained in round 2, Pro has not argued "just that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified." Pro must argue this, otherwise Pro will not be following the following rule: "Pro will be arguing, that con is arguing, that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified," and thus Con will automatically win.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
Anything is arguable.
Posted by 00 4 years ago
00
Arguing is not always morally justified. Arguing, like any other action, has consequences; sometimes, the consequences can outweigh the benefits of free speech, making it immoral. For example, convincing people to ingest a substance that you know is poisonous by contending that the substance is not poisonous is not morally justified. In order that Pro remain a moral person, Pro must not argue that it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. Pro ought concede this debate rather than commit a morally unjustifiable action by supporting the resolution.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Is arguing ever not morally justified?
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Wow! Thank you!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
yuiru00Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeit