The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 679 times Debate No: 89220
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




This is an LD debate, please do not accept if you don't debate LD.

The second part of round 1 will be the 1AC.

The first part of round 2 will be the first CX time. Max 5 questions, not including clarification questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC.

The second part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions.

The first part of round 3 will be the 1NC.

The second part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 5 questions max.

The first part of round 4 will be the answers to those CX questions.

The second part of round 4 will be the 1AR.

The first part of round 5 will be the 2NR.

The second part of round 5 will be the 2AR.

When placing cards, write out the tag as usual. When citing, write out the author last name and year. When placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate.

If there's any questions, comment.

Good luck to my opponent.


Thank you for the invitation to this debate, I am glad that we are able to talk about this issue because it was fun to watch earlier in the year -- I hope we can have a quick but fun debate.

I affirm the resolution that states resolved: adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

My value for today's round will be that of ethical egoism, a moral school of thought that is surrounded by the individual’s ability to maximise self interest over outside interests. There are two reasons why this should be prefered; one is that this is the only way that allows for children to escape paternal control (Stanford ‘02), and two is that all communitarian values hinge from an ethical egoist one (Zizek 10) -- in that there can only be a wider range of ideals or morals when you maximise your own self interest.

My criterion therefore is to advocate for a wider set of nomadism, which is central to the philosophy that Deleuze and Guattari both publish to be something of interest; I will let David Heckman explain (2002):
  • "Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State."The nomadic way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain: The nomad has a territory; he follows customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a consequence. To begin with, although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary.The water point is reached only in order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)¶ The nomad, is thus, a way of being in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo."

Contention One: Oedipus

The triangle of the family promotes a social unity – each member of the family has a specific role to which they must conform – if they do not conform, society will view these individuals as deviants – the forced cooperation of the family is the psychoanalytic colonization of Oedipus (Deleuze & Guattari 1972).

  • "the danger of this familialism in extension is ever present, conforming to the double impasse of an extended Oedipus, just as much in the diagnostic of pathogenic families in themselves as in the constitution of therapeutic quasi families."

When the adolescent makes his own autonomous decision, he or she is breaking the dominant authority of mommy and daddy – this breaks the Oedipal triangle – no longer is the child scared of mommy and daddy power, as it defies the norms of society.
Society wants adolescents to stay in the vice of the parents – if the adolescent chooses freedom over mommy-daddy, society will begin to punish – it will blame the adolescent’s rebellious nature on the Oedipus complex – it will say that the boy will want to rebel against the father because he is jealous of the father’s relation toward the mother – this is vice versa with a girl.
Of course, it is obviously not saying the child wants to sleep with its opposite sex parent and kill its same sex parent – but society is saying that your little rebellious nature is bad – it is saying that the only reason for this rebellion is because you want to defy your parents – Oedipus is designed to make the rebel child feel guilty – so society will do this by labeling he or she as rebellious (Deleuze and Guattari 1972).

  • "The law tells us: You will not marry your mother, and you will not kill your father. And we docile subjects say to ourselves: so that's what I wanted! Will it ever be suspected that the law discreditsand has an interest in discrediting and disgracingthe person it presumes to be guilty, the person the law wants to be guilty and wants to be made to feel guilty?"

If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue (Deleuze and Guattari 1972).

  • "Finally, the distinction between the Imaginary* and the Symbolic* permits the emergence of an Oedipalstructure as a system of positions and functions that do not conform to the variable figure of those who come to occupy them in a given social or pathological formation: a structural Oedipus (3 + 1) that does not conform to a triangle, but performs all the possible triangulations by distributing in a given domain desire, its object, and the law."

When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen – an adolescent can have their own autonomy and they can question the hierarchies of the state (Deleuze & Guattari 1972).

And, this 'fascism' is the path to a pure destruction of everyone (Deleuze and Guattari 1980).

  • "When fascism builds itself a totalitarian State, it is not in the sense of a State army taking power, but of a war machine taking over the State. A bizarre remark by Virilio puts us on the trail: in fascism, the State is far less totalitarian than it is suicidal. There is in fascism a realized nihilism. Unlike the totalitarian State, which does its utmost to seal all possible lines of flight, fascism is constructed on an intense line of flight, which it transforms into a line of pure destruction and abolition."

The Nomad is a way out of Oedipus – it frees them from the territorialization of the psychoanalytic family and allows them to resist the dangers of fascism (Seem 1972).

  • The first task of the revolutionary, they add, is to learn from the psychotic how to shake off the Oedipal yoke and the effects of power, in order to initiate a radical politics of desire freed from all beliefs. Such a politics dissolves the mystifications of power through the kindling, on all levels, of anti-oedipal forces—the schizzes-flows—forces that escape coding, scramble the codes, and flee in all directions: orphans (no daddy-mommy-me), atheists (no beliefs), and nomads(no habits, no territories).

I am open for cross-examination - please do make it quick, I think that it should take like 10 minutes :).

Debate Round No. 1


1. What are you trying to solve for?

2. Can you develop more on your value and criterion?

3. What exactly is Oedipus?

4. What's the whole impact of your case? What is pure destruction of everyone?

5. If I prove adolescents aren't capable of medical autonomy, do I win this round?


1. I am attempting to solve for the internallised repression that we ultimately desire from what DnG call fascism.

2. My value is that we should act in the self-interests of people (ethical egoism). Zizek makes the claim that this does a lot of things, and principally it is that it forms a community-based interest set. For example, my interest of being protected in a state leads to a state being formed because other people follow these self-interests, etc.

And then my criterion is a movement away from the state itself; move from point A to point B without the rigidity of the state--I can explain it more in detail if you would like, but I think that this explains the gist of it.

3. That's a good question, something that Deleuze and Guatarri write an entire book about (Anti-Oedipus 1972). Oedipus himself is this idea of the boy hating his father and loving his mother, but through a psychoanalytic lens of what this implies/how it is materialised is what my case gets at.

Read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles.

4. My impact is that we become entrenched in the state and we ultimately get the suppression and oppression that we think that we want through what DnG call fascism. It's not a political fascism, it's a social one and that leads us to gridlocked within the system and to ultimately be either socially or biologically dead.

Pure destruction is exactly what it sounds like, we are all destroyed purely.

5. No, you wouldn't win if you prove that adolescents aren't capable of autonomy, for a few reasons, which I would probably make arguments about in my next speech -- but principally, just having the right afforded of autonomy leads to all of these benefits that I claim (moving from the bureaucracy, the segmentary, etc...).

(Also, there is no way that you would win the round without conceding to my value and criterion since they are really dope and do a lot of things beyond just what I explain!)
Debate Round No. 2


I negate.

The value is morality.

The standard is maximizing societal welfare.

1. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.
Nagel 86.

Sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter who’s they are. Everyone takes the avoidance of pain and promotion pleasure as subjective reason for action. Without positive reason to think there is nothing good or bad about having an experience. We can't regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion.

2. Equality must be the foundation of any system. Util is the only ethical framework that is consistent with the equality of individuals by impartially maximizing good consequences. Reject ethics that admit arbitrariness, as they are not coherent guides to action.�

3. Util is the most educational because it’s how states make decisions; this gives portable skills in the realm of public policy. Education is the only portable impact from debate so prefer my standard because it’s more educational.

To summarize everything I just said, your role of the judge is to look for the debater who saves the most lives or maximizes pleasure. If I successfully prove that affirming the resolution leads to a large amount of deaths, then you vote neg because I have proved the resolution false.

Contention 1: Drugs

First, giving adolescents medical autonomy will lead to them abusing prescription drugs, which they currently are prohibited from accessing.
Foundation for a Drug-Free World

Youth prescription drug abuse is a problem around the world. In the US alone, more than 15 million abuse prescription drugs. Prescription drug abuse causes the largest percentage of deaths from drug overdosing. Of the 22,400 drug overdose deaths in the US in 2005, opioid painkillers were the most commonly found drugs, accounting for 38.2% of these deaths.

Summarizing my card, adolescents will abuse prescription drugs if we give them medical autonomy. This also proves why adolescents are incapable of medical autonomy.

There are 2 major consequences

A] This shows adolescents are not capable of medical autonomy. Drug abuse leads to school failure, family problems, impaired memory, and increased risk of infectious diseases.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse writes

Drug use can be part of a pattern of risky behavior including school failure, problems with family, loss of interest in normal healthy activities, impaired memory, and an increased risk of infectious disease.

My evidence indicates the negative effects of drugs on adolescents and impaired memory means that these adolescents won’t be able to make accurate medical decisions autonomously.

B] Adolescents abusing prescription drugs are 20 times more likely to abuse highly illegal and lethal drugs.
Foundation For A Drug-Free World

Teens who abuse prescription drugs are twice as likely to use alcohol, five times more likely to use marijuana, and twelve to twenty times more likely to use illegal street drugs such as heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine. Abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people a year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin.

This card indicates that giving adolescents medical autonomy is problematic because they are 20 times more likely to abuse numerous illegal drugs like marijuana and heroin. This card also shows that thousands of adolescents are dying in the US yearly because of this abuse.

Summarizing my first contention, drug abuse leads to many detrimental effects to the adolescents’ health. As the judge, you should vote neg because we are protecting the health of adolescents who will literally be dying and suffering from drug abuse, which the affirmative is worsening.

Contention 2: Disease

First, giving adolescents medical autonomy leads to a massive increase in diseases. My evidence indicates that a frightening amount of adolescents reject vaccinations.
Taddio ‘12

Needle fear contributes to distress in vaccinators and dissatisfaction with the immunization experience for everyone. Procedures may be aborted. Traumatic memories of past procedures lead to the development of negative attitudes about immunization. 26% of individuals refused vaccination because of fear of injections.

My evidence shows that adolescents will not take vaccines if they are given medical autonomy because of multiple reasons, including needle fear and bad memories. This has resulted in outbreaks of diseases in the past, ravaging across countries and killing many.

Second, diseases cause mass death, possible extinction.
Mensa 96

There is a medical crisis at hand. Humanity could face extinction because of a single virus. The threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent. The survival of the human species is not a preordained. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. Viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. Viruses would infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race.

This evidence shows that deadly viruses have the ability to wipe out populations because these small microbial viruses are often so hard to detect. They take advantage of humans as we subtlety transport them to others and they take control of our bodies and deprive us of essential nutrients. If adolescents refuse vaccines, then outbreaks are inevitable. Even if extinction does not occur, massive populations will be wiped out. This could be comparable to an ebola outbreak in New York City.

Summarizing my second contention, adolescents do not like vaccines and thus, if we give them medical autonomy then they will reject vaccines. This is extremely dangerous for society because vaccines are key to preventing diseases and my evidence indicates that mass death of populations will follow if we are to do the affirmative plan. **Thus, I negate. (read this last sentence only if you do not have time to read the AC flow)

Go to my opponent's case.

My opponent's framework (and case) revolve around the idea that autonomy comes first. However, their framework begs the question "why is autonomy intrinsically valuable?" This assumption is never justified in the 1AC.

1. Nothing is intrinsically valuable since things are only valuable if they achieve some other end. Autonomy achieves some other end and is therefore valuable but that"s only after the fact that means that since death precludes autonomy, you should evaluate death impacts first.

2. The only reason autonomy would be valuable is because it allows us to control our decisions, however this assumption appeals to the idea that consequences matter which justifies utilitarianism. Instead of merely protecting autonomy, we should maximize overall autonomy.

1] My arguments are intuitively true, for example we wouldn"t let genocide occur even if we had to violate someone"s autonomy because that makes no sense.
2] Autonomy violations are inevitable " every state action will obviously violate some people"s autonomy so we should devolve to utilitarianism instead of using a framework that leads to policy inaction.

I Outweigh:
1] My arguments are intuitively true, for example we wouldn"t let genocide occur even if we had to violate someone"s autonomy because that makes no sense.
2] Autonomy violations are inevitable " every state action will obviously violate some people"s autonomy so we should devolve to utilitarianism instead of using a framework that leads to policy inaction.

And let's go to the solvency.

Medical decisions cost money but adolescents don"t have any. De facto, adolescents will require parental consent in order to pay for any medical decision. A core tenet of the aff is that parents disagree with adolescents on their medical choices" unfortunately, they don"t resolve that.
McGuire 10

Many treatments are expensive. The likelihood that a minor is able to sustain such fees is remote; hence, there is an a priori assumption of parental approval and consent. The adolescent as well as the adult are on equal footing in this matter.

This is empirically proven " most adolescents are dependent on parents for money.
White 14

Financially dependent teenagers on their parents until their mid-20s has doubled. 25% of teens think they won"t be able to support themselves until their mid-20s. Tt"s become the norm for parents to pay bills for phones, Internet, music and TV. A survey of parents with adult children found 30% keep paying the bill even after their kids are living on their own. According to a Pew study 40% barely break even or don"t have enough money to meet basic expenses. 30% of people can"t pay back student loans.

Even if adolescents are capable of getting the medical treatment the parents would find out through the medical bill. Turns all confidentiality based offence.
Moon 13

Although access to confidential services has become a cornerstone of adolescent health care confidentiality is limited. Despite promises of confidential care, parents have full access to their children"s medical records. Medical bills may reveal the type of care provided.

In other words, the aff has no solvency.

I've proven why looking to an "autonomy first" framework isn't sufficient, and why util is good. I've also shown the several causes of allowing adolescents autonomy in healthcare. I save more lives, and the aff has no solvency, which is why you need to negate.


1. What are your impacts?

2. Why do they matter

3. Why does that matter

4. Why does that matter

5. Why does that matter
Debate Round No. 3


So, my first contention has two impacts.

The negative effects of drugs on adolescents and impaired memory means that adolescents won"t be able to make accurate medical decisions autonomously. Drug abuse leads to school failure, family problems, impaired memory, and increased risk of infectious diseases.

And, giving adolescents medical autonomy is problematic because they are 20 times more likely to abuse numerous illegal drugs like marijuana and heroin. Thousands of adolescents are dying in the US yearly because of this abuse.

This is important because these lethal drugs can kill thousands of adolescents.

My second contention is disease.

Adolescents will not take vaccines if they are given medical autonomy because of multiple reasons. This has resulted in outbreaks of diseases in the past.

Deadly viruses have the ability to wipe out populations because these viruses are often so hard to detect. They take advantage of humans as we subtlety transport them to others and they take control of our bodies and deprive us of essential nutrients. If adolescents refuse vaccines, then outbreaks are inevitable. Even if extinction does not occur, massive populations will be wiped out. This could be comparable to an ebola outbreak in New York City.

This either kills millions or billions of people, and could cause extinction.


Order is going to be 3-off (some counter-ks, etc), the NC, the AC.


The Cyclopses made a deal with the devil. They would give up one eye and they would be able to see the future. But the only future they were able to see was the day they were going to die. If they tried to change that future, like not to sleep under the rock they saw fall on them, then they would die an even more painful death that they did not see coming.
The negative is a cyclops marching along their own pathways of linear causality to a death that they have asked you to postpone by voting for them, every round they ask judges to save their lives, begging for the mercy of the ballot, living under the rock of global catastrophe waiting for it to crush them. Such an existence entrenches a form of depressive melancholy in our consciousness that negates the pleasure of being alive our breaths choke our throats our food turns to ash in our mouths, makes us into slaves of the future, willing to march in these straight lines of causality for the sake of any preservation for the sake of anyone who will save us, for the sake of a strong leader to come secure the dangerous future.
This salvation mentality is the basis for the popular rise of the most destructive forms of fascism and sets the stage for a continuous repetition of the atrocities of the 20th century and the atrocities of what DnG call our social fascism. This debate round is about competing strategies for encountering the world. Use the ballot to encounter the present! Experience the pleasure of a precarious existence and find the world as if you are experiencing everything for the first time like a scientist on an alien planet.


The negative posits themselves as masters of the theatre of policy and utilitarianism, able to create a new reality which more closely resembles the ideal form which makes their idea defensible. This drive towards purification and explanation, this will to truth, is an attempt to escape suffering and creative potential which negates life. (Turanli 2003) Their external call to the truth without realising the internal dynamics of the debate going on right now are the harms that I am talking about.

When they call for a wider reasoning of why their impacts matter, they just call to the "real-world" without understanding the societal and life-influencing ways that the 1NC actually causes and doesn't resolve those issues.

And, the 1ac’s political statements are justification for their pathos of reaction; the aff is a valorization of resistance to capture their boredom. Activism gives them a feeling of revolution while keeping everything the same. Nietzsche 1887

    • The craving for suffering - When I think of the craving to do something, which continually tickles and spurs those millions of young Europeans who cannot endure their boredom and themselves, then I realize that they must have a craving to suffer and to find in their suffering a probable reason for action, for deeds. Neediness is needed! [Not ist nötig.] Hence the politicians' clamor, hence the many false, fictitious, exaggerated "conditions of distress" of all sorts of classes and the blind readiness to believe in them. These young people demand thatnot happiness butunhappiness should approach from the outside and become visible; and their imagination is busy in advance to turn it into a monster so that afterwardthey can fight a monster. If these people who crave distress felt the strength inside themselves to benefit themselves and to do something for themselves internally, then they fill the world with their clamor about distress and all too often introduce it into the feeling of distress. They do not know what to do with themselves—and therefore paint the distress of others on the wall; they always need others! And continually other others! —Pardon me, my friends, I have ventured to paint my happiness on the wall.

Their call to an external way of living damns themselves into the same cycle and just keeps the same things happening -- my call to an internal way of living and approaching the fact that we have nothing, but accepts that this nothingness can be changed, is the only side that can have a vote cast for.

Their evidence is bad vote them down for multiple reasons:
1. It's key to friendship
2. It's key to fairness
3. It's key to aff ground

First, you need to be extending all of that evidence that I give you in the 2nd off that talks about how their pathos-driven reaction to the world is a harmful one. In cross-x, they can never articulate a wider reasoning why their impacts actually matter, they just say that there might be some sort of biological death -- I am the only one that actually tries to give you a way for evaluating the discourse in the debate; only when you have some sort of value to life, which DnG say is incompatible with the fascism they coin, can you ever hope to achieve some wider impacts - especially the wider impacts that the 1NC calls for.

Let me say that again, DnG specifically argue that they only weighing that should be happening is through the lens of the social and biological death that I am forwarding - their impacts are worthless. What is life if there is no value to it from the lens of the 1AC?

Their arguments are worthless for multiple reasons.

1. Just because it may not be possible doesn't mean that liberation from fascism isn't possible or that we shouldn't try. I hate your authors, they should die, they don't weigh anything based on the AC, your generic answers are non-responsive and that's an independent reason to vote you down.

2. So what if children are, in the SQUO, dependent on parents, my framework absolves them of this need for infinite drawing on the parents. Seriously, I am critiquing paternalism, your author is not responsive at all.

3. I don't claim solvency, I claim that in-round discourse of allowing for the destruction of the paternalist drive in all of us leads to my impacts not happening - you are an adolescent autonomously making the choice to debate, and thus you are kicking out the mommy-daddy complex that you are afforded.

4. My autonomy-first framework says that, all things considered, we should look to the benefits of autonomy before all else because it's really gucci. You aren't responsive ever.

5. My value outweighs, extend that argument that I made in cross-x about how my value is the core to basically all other ones so you have to be evaluating ethical egoism, which is at odds with the NC.

6. My impacts are realised, theres are just 'maybe something bad happens when the aff wins', while mine are in-round 100% sure to happen to prevent our complete destruction from society

Debate Round No. 4


FlamingDog0074 forfeited this round.


Lexus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Sipiri// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I provided a more detailed explanation for my vote in the comments section. Biases: I came into this debate without having an opinion. Con won me over by appealing to utilitarianism, to which I have intellectual sympathies. I am also more familiar with utilitarianism than with pro's notion of moral analysis, which may have colored my voting. Conduct: Tied. Spelling and grammar: basically tied. Arguments: Points to con for a policy victory, although not a moral one. More points for con's clarity. This is a LD debate, but I feel these two factors justify a win for con. Sources: Pro seemed to provide inaccurate sourcing. Con's sourcing was more relevant than pro's. Sourcing to con.

[*Reason for removal*] While most of the vote is sufficient, going into some light detail on each side's argumentation, the source vote is not. The relevance of Con's sources was asserted but never established, and the only analysis of Pro's sources is relegated to a single one and entirely focused on authorship rather than substance. That, by itself, is not sufficient reason to dismiss these sources or treat them as so much lesser than Pro's as to warrant awarding these points.
Posted by Sipiri 2 years ago
Below is an extended explanation of my vote. If either party disagrees with my reasoning I am open to reconsider my vote and change it accordingly.

If you wish to appeal, please include direct quotes denoted by quotation marks and a detailed explanation as to why that passage does or does not do something. Seriously, I probably missed at least one important point here, so if you think I overlooked something please point it out.
Posted by Sipiri 2 years ago
Conduct: This appears to be a tie, as I can see no overt misconduct.

Spelling and Grammar: While I noticed con made two mistakes, and I noticed none for pro, the length of this debate is enough for me to judge it to be effectively tied.

Pro's arguments were highly abstruse and relied heavily on esoteric ideas which were not reasonably articulated. Pro's moral argument appears to be predicated on the assertion that fascism, whether permanent or temporary, is immoral. This assertion was only supported by what seems to be a non-sequitur about state governance and longevity.

Con rejected pro's moral foundations and asserted their own foundation of utilitarianism, yet failed to provide any reason why this standard is more reasonable than pro's.

Pro's only persuasive reason for why autonomy is important seems to only be to prevent fascism and that impact was well established. What was NOT well established was that (again) fascism is undesirable or that it necessarily leads to, as pro put it, the death of society.

Con's persuasive reason was to prevent both individual suffering and death AND societal death.

Since both pro and con agree that societal death is something to be avoided, since con established that autonomy could result in societal collapse, and since con's arguments had better clarity, arguments go to con.

Pro seemed to use sourcing as an attempt to articulate their position rather than as appeals to reality. In their "Seem 1972" source seems actually to be from "Anti-Oedipus" co-authored by Gilles Deleuze and F"lix Guattari. Mark Seem was one of three translators. Based on the credentials of the authors, I judge that they are not authorities on fascist governments or their outcomes. Again, this source seemes to be a non sequitur.

Con seemed to source accurately and relevantly and use these sources to provide evidence for their impacts. Because of this, sources to con.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Posted by FlamingDog0074 2 years ago
Ok, cool.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
I will defend that autonomy comes first because ... well, my entire case says why
Posted by FlamingDog0074 2 years ago
Your framework says we need to look at the people first. So is your framework saying autonomy comes first, or humans should be universizable?
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Posted by FlamingDog0074 2 years ago
Just to clarify your framework, is your framework Autonomy First or Universizability?
No votes have been placed for this debate.