The Instigator
Jarhyn
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

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 3 votes the winner is...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,545 times Debate No: 27623
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (3)

 

Jarhyn

Pro

This resolution is one which cuts to the very core of "Civil Unions", "Gay Marriage" and other modelings of the domestic partnerships, ostensibly seeking an answer as to whether the government OUGHT be involved in them at all. This will, however, be my first online debate, and my first formal debate in earnest.

Definitions:
Sanctioned: to be encouraged through offering of benefits
Domestic Partnership Contract: any contract by which two private individuals agree to share expenses and pool resources in a domestic setting.
Legitimate Government Interest: This is really the meat and potatoes of what we will be debating/discussing; as such, it is by definition open to debate.

Rules:
The first round will be reserved for acceptance only.

Second, any argument made without a clear claim, data, and warrant will be invalid until the missing portions of the argument are provided. However, see the final rule: If you can identify a warrant, it is your responsibility to do so as a polite individual with respect for the truth rather than semantics. While the inability to provide such a warrant DOES reflect badly on the person in their abilities to debate, it ought not reflect badly on the argument itself. However an absence of data declares an argument as a bald assertion and such a situation would necessarily reflect badly on both the argument AND the person arguing.

Third, logical argumentation from first principles may be treated as "data", provided there is a warrant for such an argument to come back to the claim, as the authority for government and the appropriateness of law is a primary subject of philosophy, metaphysics, and game theory.

Fourth, the "first principles" shall be accepted by "con" as at least the following:
1) That the universe exists
2) That knowledge exists
3) That predictive models have value, in a way non-predictive models do not
4) That two things OUGHT be treated equally, insofar as they lack relevant difference
These are axioms, and assumptions that must be accepted at the start; also included are the axioms of math, logic, etc.. To clarify, (2) does not assume that there cannot be doubt in some thing's actual reality, or in some analysis, or in a prediction; it only assumes that certain models CAN be predictive, and that certain things DO happen, and that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is an accurate telling.

Fifth, I accept that I have the burden of proof in this debate, and that this is wholly positive claim.

Sixth, this debate is NOT as to whether some particular class ought be or not be privy to the benefits of such a contract, nor to declare what the exact benefits of such a contract ought be or not be, or even what such a contract ought be called, nor is it about if various types should be distinguished by various names. It is merely to ascertain whether or not the government has business being involved with encouraging such a class of contracts through the provision of benefits to those that engage in them.

Seventh, any provision of data requires an accurate personal summation of the PRIMARY data. If you cannot accurately assimilate and re-create the idea of your reference, then you have no business trying to use it to bolster your claims.

Finally, and most importantly, this debate is not to be a forum for "sneaky
****er"ism. Technicalities and semantics are to be avoided or corrected when noticed, not just left in place or exploited; if there is a way a particular argument DOES work and you can identify that way, but instead you attack it simply because that is not the exact way it was presented or because you do not wish to acknowledge something that you do not like, then you are a "sneaky ****er". I understand that this is not generally the way most debates take place, however it IS how THIS ONE will take place. The purpose of this debate is to explore which side is ACTUALLY right, not to determine who is the best at arguing.
wrichcirw

Con

Hello, thank you for posting this debate and for laying out a simple set of ground rules. I interpret the rules to boil down to "good faith" debating with some very general presumptions the purpose of which is to avoid trolling. These presumptions are appreciated.

Not only am I new to this forum, but I have not participated in a formal debate in a very long time. I look forward to this learning experience.

Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Jarhyn

Pro

This resolution, in my mind, comes down to two fundamental questions that need to be answered: what fundamental role in the game of survival and adaptation in the universe does the construct known as "government" exist to approximate and serve, and does the encouragement of domestic partnership through the validation of domestic partnership contracts serve that role?

The role of government

I would name the purpose of government to be to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms, and to allow people as a group to determine what constitutes explicitly acceptable behavior, both for the government itself and for the people who are members of it.

These purposes are actually ethical imperatives, derived precisely from shared first principles set forth at the beginning of this debate. Such an investigation is laid out in the book The Rebel, by Camus. To make it succinct and perhaps overly brief, the individual exists, and the universe exists, therefore the other may exist. The other is equal to self by virtue of equal existence, therefore other must be treated as self, principally because equals ought be treated equally. Because of non-contradiction, that which the other may not do the self may not do, and that which the self may do, the other may do. Further, that which the other may not do is that which the self may prevent from being done, and that which the self would prevent from being done to self is also that which the self ought prevent from being done to others, as equals must be treated equally.

This is further corroborated by many different sources of philosophy, not the least of which being our own constitution which has approximated it with the provision that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, things which to which all people ought be entitled... it is an explicit declaration that all people ought be afforded the freedom to be. It is also supported by numerous religions, which have independently come to a vague and emergent understanding that we ought do unto others as we would have done to ourselves, that we ought not do to others that which we do not wish done to ourselves, that we are to be good to one another, etc (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

With this in mind, there are certain problems of natural evil: people die, people have emotions which wrest control of their own bodies from their rational minds, people have needs and drives which they CANNOT ignore which otherwise limit their freedoms either in the requirement for action (where someone would, if free to choose, simply not do those things). It is the responsibility of all of us to reduce incidents where people or nature as it is are acting against the freedom of individuals to that same extent as we value our own freedoms. And because it takes time to reason out what particular classes of action may or may not be within our freedoms, and this problem of time itself impedes our ability to act freely (to act rather than to sit and process the appropriateness of our actions), we have a responsibility to codify and create tables of those classes of actions which are and are not within our freedoms, and thusly to codify such as law, as well as pool the resources of people for the purposes of reducing the influences of what may be referred to as "natural evil" as coordinated effort is more effective than uncoordinated effort, and by enforcing those laws through a division of labor.

So from the intersection of natural ethical rights and responsibilities, and natural evil, there is a purpose and place and ethical authorization for government that can be clearly defined. It is not just the government's responsibility to provide for the public welfare because it is in some assertion of government's power but also because it is demonstrably the case from first principles and the state of reality.

The necessity of domestic partnership in an imperfect world

Given that it is thusly demonstrable that any government which might claim ethical authority must be in the business of providing for the public welfare, it is then necessary to ask whether or not the encouragement of domestic partnership is looking after the public welfare, and if the costs of such a pursuit might be better spent in some other way.

First, individuals who live together rather than alone require less infrastructure than those who do not live alone. By not needing separate buildings or spaces, those living together in a space have reduced their demands upon the system which provides the resources for their activities. This reduction of costs itself is a boon in that the time people don't spend providing extra for these separate people, the more they can be spending doing more useful or interesting stuff or in acting freely, spending fewer raw materials or expending less available energy for their combined survival and freedom. In fact, sharable expenditures account for 60+% of low and middle income expenditures, when transportation costs are counted (13). That reduction, that "penny (of freedom) saved" is a "penny (of freedom) earned" across a wide sector of society, as societal effort is no longer responsible for those additional costs in the defense of the freedom of those people to be. For that reason if for no other, the government has a responsibility to encourage such situations of cohabitation through the offering of contracts which formalize the responsibilities between cohabitants and to provide incentives for engaging in such effort-reducing activities.

Second, humans have a biological drive to find mates and keep them close. It is what happened to work well in the game of Darwinian evolution. Simply, the majority of humans have a driving need for companionship (14), and by arranging our living spaces in such a way that companionship is available, it reduces the effort to satisfy those drives for companionship (15). Again, this yields less opportunity costs towards the actual implementation of freedom because while people CAN choose to spend their time doing those things, they shouldn't HAVE TO. Thus encouraging and publicizing and taking measures to increase the longevity of such partnerships and cohabitation is within the general public welfare: it reduces the activities (and thus the opportunity cost) necessary to satisfy biological drives.

Thus the argument is not that domestic partnership directly increases the public good, but rather its existence reduces the overall impact of other problems upon society as a whole, and in an effort to reduce these to their greatest extent, we should as a matter of course encourage domestic partnership to its greatest possible extent.

In this way, it seems apparently that the provision of state sanctioned domestic partnership contracts constitute a legitimate government interest.

Bibliography

1 Pim van Lommel. Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience
2 Morse, l., D. Venecia, and J. Milstein. 1989. Near-death experiences: A neurophysiological explanatory model. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 8 45-53.
3 Matthew 7:12 RSV
4 Analects 12:2
5 Udana-Varga 5,1
6 Mahabharata 5,1517
7 Sunnah (No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.)
9 Talmud, Shabbat 3id
10 Tai Shang Kan Yin P"ien (Regard your neighbor"s gain as your gain, and your neighbor"s loss as your own loss.)
11 Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
13 http://www.bls.gov...
14 Baumeister, Roy F., and Leary, Mark R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 117(3), May 1995, 497-529.
15 Cutrona, Carolyn E. 2004. A psychological perspective: Marriage and the social provisions of relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 66, Issue 4, pages 992"999, November 2004
wrichcirw

Con

First of all I would like to congratulate my opponent for barely making the deadline for his submission. I hope PRO's schedule has cleared up a bit so that PRO can focus on this debate without undue time constraints.

I will remind voters that it is up to my opponent to provide the burden of proof, and that regardless of your personal feelings on this matter, to limit your voting preferences to the arguments presented in this debate.

PRO's argument is very simple, despite its voluminous length:


Assumptions:

PRO states that the government's role is "to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms, and to allow people as a group to determine what constitutes explicitly acceptable behavior, both for the government itself and for the people who are members of it."

PRO then declares that freedom is defined as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, things which to which all people ought be entitled... it is an explicit declaration that all people ought be afforded the freedom to be. "

PRO also asserts "the other is equal to self by virtue of equal existence, therefore other must be treated as self, principally because equals ought be treated equally," i.e. "do to others as you would have them do to you." [2]

PRO further states that "there are certain problems of natural evil: people die, people have emotions which wrest control of their own bodies from their rational minds, people have needs and drives which they CANNOT ignore which otherwise limit their freedoms..."

PRO observes that in an imperfect world, "individuals who live together rather than alone...spend[] fewer raw materials or expend[] less available energy for their combined survival and freedom." It follows that such arrangements grant the participants more freedom.

I do not understand why it took PRO 10+ citations and 2/3 of PRO's round to state such mundane details - it belittled his argument, which was indeed quite brief. Regardless, the format of this debate will give you (the voter), me, and my opponent more time and space to make them more relevant.


What PRO has failed to address is that in an imperfect world with natural evil, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," [3] that in order to "fight [for] that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens," it may at times have to compromise the freedoms of some of its citizenry for the "greater good". One easy example of this compromise of freedom of some of its citizenry is the need to maintain a military and police force - how else would the government be able to "fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens"? Freedom is not free. "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots..." Thomas Jefferson [1]

If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion. Because of this, it follows that the less the government gets involved in, the better.

Thomas Paine said it best: "security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." [3]


--

From these assumptions, PRO then makes two bald assertions:

1) that "the government has a responsibility to encourage such situations of cohabitation through the offering of contracts which formalize the responsibilities between cohabitants and to provide incentives for engaging in such effort-reducing activities," and

2) that it is the government's role to "encourag[e] and publiciz[e] and tak[e] measures to increase the longevity of such partnerships and cohabitation...it reduces the activities (and thus the opportunity cost) necessary to satisfy biological drives."


I have no idea why the government would have to undertake such tasks, when private actors in the private sector are perfectly capable of doing so on their own. I argue that...

1) Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention - this is what college students already do all around the world. The government does NOT have "a responsibility to encourage such situations."

2) The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship. People through their own biological functions will find more than enough encouragement through their natural impulses (i.e. sexual drives) to seek companionship, as PRO himself states that "humans have a biological drive to find mates and keep them close."

PRO may argue that there is no force involved, as he states that "while people CAN choose to spend their time [looking for companionship], they shouldn't HAVE TO." Yet that is exactly what the government is doing by getting involved. Why? Because if a citizen does NOT conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion. The government is expending time and effort to "increase the longevity of such partnerships", time and effort that is wholly unnecessary due to the natural biological function, and which can be directed towards more pertinent issues, whatever they may be. The citizenry is forced to adhere to such government intervention. If a citizen or body of citizens objects to this monolithic government's sense of morality, the government is authorized to use its military and police force to ensure compliance.

Again, "measures to increase the longevity of such partnerships and cohabitation" can be accomplished through the private sector. Some examples of a private sector solution would be a romance novel, or a bouquet of flower, or a lavish hotel suite for the more adventurous.

Unless I have missed something in PRO's argument, I find solid grounds to dismiss all of his arguments up to this point. He has offered no proof or valid arguments that "Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest." Indeed I would go so far as to say that the entire concept of a "sanctioned domestic partnership contract" is irrelevant to his position, as private actors can cohabitate and seek companionship without some outside body "sanctioning" their partnership.

[1] http://www.monticello.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.ushistory.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Jarhyn

Pro

On claims of bald assertion

The reasoned claim that is the duty of government "to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms, and to allow people as a group to determine what constitutes explicitly acceptable behavior, both for the government itself and for the people who are members of it" it is not an assumption. It is a claim to which there was data, particularly a pursuit of logical implications of our shared first principles. That data logically DEMANDED of those first principles that society as a whole, every person in it, had a responsibility to pursue that end, and that government existed as the realization of that shared responsibility, and a warrant back to the claim.

Further, I did NOT simply declare a definition in my discussion as "freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"; rather, that particular quote was not a claim, but rather DATA to prove an entirely different claim: That freedom is a concept that arises througout history independently. That freedom arises from many sources is evidence that freedom is more than just nonsensical fancy.

"[T]he other is equal to self by virtue of equal existence, therefore other must be treated as self, principally because equals ought be treated equally," is also not an assertion; it is a logical implication of the first principles that the universe exists, and the moral law that equals ought be treated equally. Further, this does NOT logically equal "do to others as you would have them do to you."; ALL THREE of those moral laws must be taken together, else the resultant thing is invalid.

"[I]ndividuals who live together rather than alone...spend fewer raw materials or expend less available energy for their combined survival and freedom." does not just imply that those individuals involved spend fewer resources, but also that they consume fewer resources, so long as they exist in such an imperfect world as ours. In their lack of consumption, those resources remain available for society. This is an important point which cannot be overlooked, and is foundational to the argument that Domestic Partnerships contribute to the public good.

A priori responsibility to the people to foil natural evil as a trait of any rightful government is one of the vital points for supporting the resolution of the debate, and this has not been adequately challenged because...


Con's declarations on the nature of government

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," Is itself an argument from authority, in character no different from a mere assertion. While it might be interesting to see an ACTUAL argument leveled from either first principles or observations of reality, this is not such an argument; likewise the quotation of the words of Jefferson similarly fail to be anything beyond mere assertion.

It is no small thing to note that from my previous statement, particularly against such spurious claims, "that which the other may not do is that which the self may prevent from being done, and that which the self would prevent from being done to self is also that which the self ought prevent from being done to others, as equals must be treated equally"; it is not within the freedom of any person to just shirk their responsibilities. The same logic that entitles a person to freedom also binds them to defend the freedom of others, and also defend them from natural evil. This means that it is not undue coercion when government does things for the public good, particularly if such a thing is limiting the effects of evil. There must be some "evil" present for it to be considered a "necessary evil", and nothing CON has said so far actually supports this claim.


The social effects of domestic partnership

So, one of the supported responsibilies of government is to lessen the effects of natural evil upon society, not only from first principles but also from the de-facto charter of said government (1). From that it follows that if reducing the overal need of society for material consumption is an effect of domestic partnership, and such constites reduction of the effect of natural evil, then it follows that the government should want as much domestic partnership as it can bring about, and that it has the responsibility and ethical authorization to lay taxes for the purpose of bringing about that end.

After all, IF there existed some injection which utterly removed a person's need to eat and their hunger and harmed them in no way, would it not be within the government's interest to subsidize and encourage its citizens to choose such a course of action? It would utterly end the need for so many of us to farm crops, and this is surely within the general welfare, itself being an utter end to the natural evil of hunger and starvation. What of an injection that merely reduced the need by half? Certainly! Indeed, any reduction in need afforded by such a measure ought be encouraged and subsidzed through taxation, so long as the effect of the measure is greater than the overall impact of the taxation, and where the measure itself does not get utterly forced upon the people. It is further not just in the benefit of some private enterprise; in fact, such a measure is AGAINST the benefit of specific private enterprises. However, it IS in the benefit of SOCIETY.

Here, though, instead of hunger, we are looking at a measure, freely taken, which reduces the consumption, hunger, need different resources: housing, electricity, heat. So long as the overall benefit to the general welfare in convincing them of such a course of action is greater than the cost of the taxes which support it, MUST similarly be within the duty of government to provide such a benefit.


On privatization

CON asserts that private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate their own terms for doing so without government intervention. I can, in fact, agree with the first clause of this claim, that people will in general see it within their own best interests to cohabitate. However, on the second claim, this is not borne out by reality. The existence of people fighting specifically for government regulated and recognized domestic partnership contracts is proof that private actors DO wish there to be government involvement and regulation in such contracts, and need for arbtration of disputes arising over informal cohabitation is evidence that the state DOES have interests in considering laws which formally outline resnsibilities in such situations.

However on his second assertion, I entirely agree; the govermnent DOESN'T have any business forcing an activity which by all rights in such contracts would be voluntary. However, the government does have business encouraging it to take place. After all, the government in many cases rightly tells us how not to go about our biological urges for mediating boredom; they clearly prohibit drunken driving, and though sexual education have every responsibility to encourage safe sex. Within this same logic, they also have a responsibility to encourage responsible cohabitation and to mediate its successful cessation when such is necessary.

After this, CON continues to argue from the spurious bald assertion of before, in his declaration of government's function and his claim that such would constitute government coercion. There is, here, the claim that the citizenry is forced to comply with some edict; in this case the edict "IF you choose to file a domestic partnership contract withthe government, the government will provide you specific benefits" does not in any way dictate action by persons. It dictates the levying of a TAX, one which is far smaller than the societal benefit, which government is otherwise authorized and even required to seek.

[1] Constitution of the United States, Article I section 8.
wrichcirw

Con

1) PRO's section "On claims of bald assertion" expands on concepts I have already agreed are stated assumptions for the debate (see my comment in regards to the meaning of "assumption"). Currently I see no reason to disagree with his expansions, although I will say again that I simply do not find discussion of any of it pertinent to the argument at hand, whether or not "Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest." PRO did not make any connections in that entire section to the argument.

2) In PRO's section "Con's declarations on the nature of government" PRO makes the bald assertion that Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson are not credible sources when used to discuss government. This in my opinion is a preposterous claim, and I see no reason whatsoever to agree to such an assertion. I challenge PRO to spend as much time as he would like on attempting to disprove Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson as authorities on government, and I am almost certain such an attempt will take up far more time and space than allowed by this debate format.

I will reaffirm that "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."

PRO also states that "It is no small thing to note that from my previous statement, particularly against such spurious claims, "that which the other may not do is that which the self may prevent from being done, and that which the self would prevent from being done to self is also that which the self ought prevent from being done to others, as equals must be treated equally"; it is not within the freedom of any person to just shirk their responsibilities." PRO completely disregards his stances on natural evil and an imperfect world when making these assumptions at this juncture. Natural evil in an imperfect world will interfere with what OUGHT to be done.

PRO also states that "there must be some "evil" present for it to be considered a "necessary evil", and nothing CON has said so far actually supports this claim." He is correct, because I did not have to -- PRO stated in round #2 that "there are certain problems of natural evil: people die, people have emotions..." PRO is contradicting himself here and is getting lost in his own voluminous maze of esoteric, philosophical, and irrelevant material. THERE IS NATURAL EVIL IN THE NATURAL WORLD. This makes government a necessary evil, as already quoted by Thomas Paine. The government is not a pure good...there is no pure good in an imperfect world.


3) In PRO's section "The social effects of domestic partnership", he states that "it follows that the government should want as much domestic partnership as it can bring about." I disagree. It follows that the people should want as much domestic partnership as possible. Whether or not the coercion inherent in government action is necessary to do this has already been refuted. It is in people's best interests to cohabitate and seek companionship, and they will do so anyway through private sector solutions, as I have already discussed in detail in round #2, and which PRO up to this point has not contested.

PRO asks "IF there existed some injection which utterly removed a person's need to eat and their hunger and harmed them in no way, would it not be within the government's interest to subsidize and encourage its citizens to choose such a course of action?" My answer is familiar and simple - If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion. Whenever a government "subsidizes" or "encourages" an activity, it must first encode the action into law. Failure to comply with this law by any of its citizens authorizes the government to enforce the law via military or police action.

For example, I'm certain that if we can develop an energy source that was extremely cheap and extremely clean, the people would want such an energy source. However, the private sector can research and develop this source of energy without the implied coercion of the government edict. One need only mention Solyndra to see how disastrous high minded, monolithic government action can become. [1]


4) In PRO's section "On privatization", PRO claims that private actors will require government intervention in order to cohabitate and seek companionship. His argument lies in the simple assertion that it is happening now, so it must be necessary. Since PRO seems a bit bashful about being direct, I will do it for him, and interpret that when he talks about "people fighting specifically for government regulated and recognized domestic partnership contracts" he is talking about gay rights activists fighting for recognition of their domestic partnerships.

Well, all I will say to this is that yes, I am aware of gay rights activists' struggles. However, the (real) topic of the debate is whether or not they should be struggling in the first place. PRO has offered absolutely no justification for their struggles, other than to say that because they are occurring, they must be just. I await PRO to actually make a valid argument here.

PRO also states that "the govermnent DOESN'T have any business forcing an activity which by all rights in such contracts would be voluntary. However, the government does have business encouraging it to take place. " Again, PRO fails to consider that "whenever a government "subsidizes" or "encourages" an activity, it must first encode the action into law. Failure to comply with this law by any of its citizens authorizes the government to enforce the law via military or police action."

He then talks about drunk driving and safe sex, and how the government does rightly intervene in these two matters. However, there is a clear government need for intervention here, as there are clear and present dangers to the security, indeed the very lives of citizens if the government does not act. Drunk driving endangers not only the driver, but any unfortunate soul that found him or herself in harm's way. Unprotected sex transmits STDs, which could become epidemics in today's sexually liberated society.

PRO then states that "a domestic partnership contract with the government...does not in any way dictate action by persons. It dictates the levying of a TAX, one which is far smaller than the societal benefit, which government is otherwise authorized and even required to seek."

1) Regarding any taxes, taxes are collected via authorization from the tax code, a government edict. "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."
2) I challenge PRO to quantify the social benefit versus the tax levied, because I simply am not convinced this is the case. The burden of proof is on PRO, as he stated in round #1.


I applaud PRO's well crafted argument, but there are many irrelevancies that I don't think need to be repeatedly addressed. I also encourage him to be more forthright regarding the issue at hand: are sanctioned domestic partnership contracts a legitimate government interest? I feel that 95% of this debate is almost wholly irrelevant to this question and instead is about what I consider to be irrelevant esoteric details.

At this juncture, I am simply unconvinced that the heavy hand of the government is at all required in this matter. PRO has spent almost all of his time and space arguing other details. The burden of proof is on PRO to actually state his case.

[1] http://abcnews.go.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
Jarhyn

Pro

1) On claims of bald assertion: given that CON has given concession on all of these points through acceptance, he has accepted the following claim without challege: the duty of government is to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms, and to allow people as a group to determine what constitutes explicitly acceptable behavior, both for the government itself and for the people who are members of it.

2) It is not a bald assertion to note the fallacy of "argument from authority". CON has made a positive claim as to the nature of government, and in so doing has accepted a burden of proof on that claim. He has provided nothing that constitutes "proof", merely the statements of men without any actual support as to the validity of those claims. No amount of credentials can make an inaccurate utterance anything but; Surely Sir Isaac Newton was a great physicist, but no amount of discussion of his physics will ever make his writings on the physics of alchemy any more correct, nor does it make his discoveries on thermodynamics any less susceptible to refinement with modern discovery. Simply put, Newton was wrong in many extents about many things, and so too were Jefferson and Paine. Their claims on the nature of government as a necessary evil in its best of states must see corroboration not from additional people that agree, but rather from actual reasons.

Further, he makes a claim at IS may interfere with OUGHT, which is itself a spurious claim; This is the IS/OUGHT problem of philosophy[1]. Simply, you start with RULES, and apply it to the REALITY, to get the prescription. The reality doesn't modify the RULES.

Finally on this section of CON's argument, he is mischaracterizing my own claims, particularly an equivocation as to where the "evil" exists. Within the function and existence of government, itself being in the best of real cases a perfect implementation of ethical considerations as per (1), there is no evil present there; instead, the evil rests in the world which it regulates and corrects. It is the difference between a correct math which can answer a problem, the math being in this situation governmet, and the problem itself. "Math" is not "The Problem". Math is the solution to the problem. In such a similar way, government in this claim IS NOT the evil, Government is the solution to resolving and removing the evil. Nowhere here is it evidenced that in the best of cases government itself is some form of evil, evil being defined as that which does harm to freedom.

3) The nature of government I have argued is that Government is in the best of cases a pure implementation of the collective responsibilities of society. to that extent any argument that THE PEOPLE as a group should want as much domestic partnership as possible IS THE SAME AS the claim that Government should seek as much domestic partnership s possible; I see this as a concession of CON on this point, and further, CON still must establish that government action is itself coercion. Further, in the previous round, it has been established that because people DO seek public sector remediation and recognition and solutions in their domestic partnerships, that private solutions previously offered are in the people's eyes insufficient. This directly counters CON's claim that people will simply seek solutions through the private sector.

CON claims that government has authority to FORCE some outcome that it view is within the public good; however, as I have stated time and time again, THERE ARE OTHER CLEAR OPTIONS, and in some cases it is clearly not the case that the government has such an authority to force a particular state. This is the difference between a "stick" and a "carrot". Further, CON still lacks any sufficient backing to this positive claim that the govrnment has such authority, and that the government action in various cases can at all be classified as coercion. There is the implicit assumption in CON's argument here, an invalid assumption, that the existence of a law implies the coercion of participation in that law. Someone could, for instance, decide to cohabitate and not engage a domestic partnership contract. It is only of their willing and informed consent tt individuals could ever be bound under such a law. Such participation could by no means EVER be considered a "coercion" under any commonly understood definition of the word.

CON seems to fall into some mythical thinking that private interests are always acting in the public good; private interests are driven by AMORAL market factors; the market is not concerned with what OUGHT be; the market is only concerned with what IS the path to the greatest possible profits, and in many cases is demonstrably short sighted in this pursuit. This can be seen through the efforts of MONSANTO, and their administration of GE crops, themselves a great boon to mankind, but handled as MONSANTO wishes to handle them they have created widespread economic hardship.

4) In On Privatization, I have already conceded that I do not find it particularly necessary that government intervene or encourage for cohabitation to take place, at least in most settings... however there ARE situations where government encouragement and formalization are outright necessary, and mong these are domestic partnerships for military members. A highly structured environment is arguably necessary to the fulfillment of the mission but because of natural evil there is a need in those individul soldiers for companionship and ready availability of mates, particularly when they have picked a specific mate in the way that most humans do. A lack of formal government recognition in this setting would ENTIRELY deprive the soldier of their ability to cohabitate in the best possible way. The formal government recognition of such a state would in fact be directly supportive of the psychological welbeing of the soldier, and as the military is itself involved in the welbeing of the state, such would be in the public interest. There are a great many other things which public recognition and sanction of marriage enables which private enterprise cannot, such as immigration, legal, mandatory partner benefits, and other such legal protections.

Additionally, CON has argued the specific positive claim that "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention" This was his claim. Since private actors DO NOT see it in their best interests to do so, this statement is clearly invalid. He said A. I provided a real example of NOT A. Therefore any warrant that he draws from this claim is suspect. Either this claim has nothing to do with supporting CON's argument and thus the claim is invalid and to be ignored entirely OR my example which disproved it by example is sufficient to invalidate thergument and thus it should be ignored entirely.

I have previously shown how CON's next claim is logically invalid; that participation in some laws, this particular law included, is entirely based on the informed consent, and that there can be no such coercion implied by this situation.

Further, CON has already accepted and conceded that "In [a couple's] lack of consumption, those resources [that they do not consume in their continued activity] remain available for society." The consumption of additional resources presents a clear and present danger, through increased costs of living, to society as a whole. Hence it is to be encouraged. Non-cohabiting persons present a risk of increased burden for society. This in and of itself constiutes a benefit that people have been willing to pay a penalty to get. Further, certain benefits to the freedom of society cannot be quantified in such a manner but rather must be evaluated as "is this the cheapest way to increase freedom".

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
wrichcirw

Con

Since PRO is now basically playing a semantics war,

1) I will simply assert that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are experts on governance, particularly governance as defined by the US Constitution.

2) I will reassert that "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."

I will also assert that PRO's statement, "within the function and existence of government, itself being in the best of real cases a perfect implementation of ethical considerations as per (1), there is no evil present there," is wholly false, as in a world with natural evil, where the actors in the world are themselves subject to this evil, that any constructs or theories such flawed individuals would create would themselves be subject to this evil. It thus follows that the government being "in the best of cases a pure implementation of the collective responsibilities of society" is a fallacy to which my opponent subscribes, as society is impure, thus an implementation of such a society's responsibilities would also be impure.

There has to be a starting point for the discussion. There have to be some basic assumptions as to what is considered valid material. I respectfully draw the line here.

I will leave it to the voters to ascertain whether or not these assertions are valid, and whether or not they add or detract in any meaningful fashion the pertinent discussion at hand. I also ask that you weigh this against PRO's voluminous philosophical ramblings.

I was very tempted to just pull out a fallibility argument, but decided to actually see if PRO had some points for me to refute.



Now onto the actual debate:

1) PRO also asserts that "CON claims that government has authority to FORCE some outcome that it view is within the public good; however...THERE ARE OTHER CLEAR OPTIONS, and in some cases it is clearly not the case that the government has such an authority to force a particular state. This is the difference between a "stick" and a "carrot"." I respond that Government "carrots" exist only because of taxes paid by the citizenry. Taxes are collected via authorization from the tax code, a government edict. Recall that "if a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."

2) Pro states that "CON seems to fall into some mythical thinking that private interests are always acting in the public good; private interests are driven by AMORAL market factors." This discussion is not about private versus public good. It is a discussion about whether or not sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest. It is a discussion about whether or not sanctioning a specific private good is a legitimate government interest.


3) PRO has made an interesting assertion, that military troops require a "sanctioned domestic partnership contract" and that such a contract is a legitimate government interest.

However, this is not a decision that troops make. It is a decision made for them by their commanders. There is no contract signed between soldiers of a military unit to cohabitate - they do because they are ordered to do so. The reasons may indeed be to provide "a highly structured environment...necessary to the fulfillment of the mission," but it is not a decision left to the soldiers. In this sense, it does NOT fall under PRO's definition of a "Domestic Partnership Contract":

"any contract by which two private individuals agree to share expenses and pool resources in a domestic setting."


Therefore, this specific case is invalid and does not meet the requirements for the argument, as there is no contract for cohabitation between soldiers.


4) PRO states "Since private actors DO NOT see it in their best interests to do so, this statement is clearly invalid. He said A. I provided a real example of NOT A." This is a strawman argument. I never stated the first sentence. I am clear in stating that "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention." At this point I believe PRO is putting words into my mouth. If PRO is attempting to link his otherwise wholly irrelevant Monsanto argument to this point, Monsanto to my knowledge is not looking to cohabitate or seek companionship with anyone. Although US law may recognize a corporation as an individual, I will simply contend that a corporation is not an individual for the purposes of this debate, it does not look to cohabitate, nor does it "have a biological drive to find mates and keep them close." This is a completely irresponsible line of thinking from PRO.


5) PRO states that "Further, CON has already accepted and conceded that "In [a couple's] lack of consumption, those resources [that they do not consume in their continued activity] remain available for society." He is correct in that I made this concession previously. I will now correct myself here by stating that "In [a couple's] lack of consumption, those resources [that they do not consume in their continued activity] remain available for the couple," and not for society. "A penny saved is a penny earned", not "a penny saved is a penny earned for the government". I missed this detail and I apologize for it. I hope readers as well as PRO will be able to adjust to this turn of events and understand how easy it is to miss some of PRO's more esoteric assumptions.


To review, at this point of the debate:

1) Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention

2) The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship.

3) There is no contract signed between soldiers of a military unit to cohabitate - they do because they are ordered to do so.

4) A corporation is not an individual for the purposes of this debate.

5) Regarding any taxes, taxes are collected via authorization from the tax code, a government edict. "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."

6) Government "carrots" exist only because of taxes paid by the citizenry.

These statements have served to disprove any assertions PRO has attempted to make that "sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest."



I am still left wondering when we will discuss gay marriage or gay rights, instead of soldier's rights, or cohabitation and companionship, or Monsanto.

I will leave it up to PRO whether or not he wants the final round to be reserved for closing comments only.
Debate Round No. 4
Jarhyn

Pro

1) argument from authority. As I said before, and as is the core of the fallacy, argument from authority is not a valid form of argument without REASONS to back it up. CON must either provide reasons which support the assertion or concede the point

2) CON continues to reassert a disproved premise that the existence of an edict made by a government constitutes authority to force compliance. This is not true; only edicts made by government which constitute demonstrable responsibility or defensible definition of classes of freedom and non-freedom are authorized for enforcement, hence the discussion of A Priori authority of government. No man has any right to shirk these responsibilities, nor do that which they have no authority of freedom to do, and thus government enforcing ANY such edict is allowed and encouraged; no "balancing" is therefore necessary. Either it's right, and it should be done, or it is not, and it should not be done. Secondly, not all edicts made by government imply coercion of ANY sort, in particular contracts such as domestic partnership contracts. There is nothing "semantic" about it; there's no coercion of any sort involved here. People are engaging in government checked and regulated contracts of their own free will.

"[A]ny constructs or theories such flawed individuals would create would themselves be subject to this evil." is itself a spurious and invalid argument, therefore it cannot provide support to any of CON's arguments; while it very clearly speaks against his argument from authority, this falls prey to the genetic fallacy. Just because an imperfect person says some thing does not necessarily make the thing itself incorrect or imperfect; the existence of a great many mathematical proofs, perfect in their validity, is proof that imperfect creatures can have a perfect understanding of a concept.

CON's points:

1) This premise upon which this is built fails under (1) above; CON must concede this point.

2) CON argues, incorrectly, that this discussion is about a "private good", when it is not; it is clearly about a public good, namely reducing the sum total of effort necessary to maintain society, and thereby increasing the common freedom to be. It is about whether government participation, regulation, or encouragement of some form of contract is within the PUBLIC interest; see (5) below.

3) CON argues from a straw man; I would hope that it is clear that I am talking about individuals who are engaging in MARRIAGES, though I am not about to argue against also allowing other arrangements. Married soldiers are generally afforded privileges such as off-base housing, married housing, separation pay, spouse insurance, survivor benefits, etc.. Without formal recognition of these relationships, the soldier can and often does find life to be particularly more complicated and stressful, a situation which can severely decrease a soldier's individual readiness and mental health. We recognize the need of people to be close to one another in this way, and the only way for it to become possible as an alternative to barracks life is a federal recognition of constructs of domestic partnership.

Further, there are OTHER human needs which CANNOT be satisfied by purely "private" contract, such as provision of immigration status, guarantee of health care benefits (if there is no regulation, any given provider through a workplace may deny coverage for some class of domestic partnership they find 'distasteful', especially in situations where an employee is unable to find other employment or insurance options which satisfy their needs), support for partner-as-domestic-dependant, partner protection in a courtroom, and other such concessions our society recognizes are beneficial and which are only possible through government involvement.

4) "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention." CON makes a claim here, and further is accusing me of putting words in his mouth; I am not, and this is in fact a red herring. I am indicating that this specific claim is false. He has made a badly assembled claim that private actors (do?) see it in their best interests to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their living arrangements without government intervention. This claim is A. I have clearly shown that in reality, Some private actors see it in their best interest to cohabitate and allow, request, or demand of government to intervene on the terms and living arrangements of that cohabitation. While this not strictly a reversal of CON's premise, it IS clearly a negation of it. Any of CON's arguments that flow from this premise is invalid through faulty premise.

5) In order to evaluate CON's claim here, that reducing consumption for a couple does not itself benefit all of society, it may be best to simplify the problem. Imagine that all heat comes from coal. Imagine for a moment that each person living on their own requires 10 pieces of coal to heat their house, and couples between them only need 6 apiece, for a total of 12 pieces of coal. If a society of 100 people naturally has a cohabitation rate of 60%, this means that the society consumes 760 pieces of coal; 760 pieces of coal worth of effort must be applied annually to keep every person alive and warm. If, as an incentive to cohabitate, the government offers to chip in 2 pieces of coal to every person that cohabitates and increases cohabitation by 10%, that entire society will only require 720 pieces of coal, reducing the collective effort necessary to heat the houses of the population by 40 pieces of coal. In order to offer this incentive, the government must collect .7 pieces of coal from every person, on average. However, the society as a whole still must only do 720 pieces of coal worth of work. This simplified society is therefore better off AS A WHOLE because the people in it do not need to do quite so much work to stay warm; fewer people must work in the coal mine, and there is more time for pursuits like education, innovation, etc.. This is assuming a tax is even the best incentive; token benefits, or education may work too.

So to reiterate MY claims

1) Society as a whole (GOVERNMENT) has a natural ethical responsibility to produce laws that codify what is right and wrong, do works which reduce the effects of evil, and collect taxes to fund those works. (ACCEPTED BY CON)

2) Domestic partnerships reduce the effects of natural evil (as per 5 above, ACCEPTED BY CON)

3) Therefore government has a responsibility to encourage Domestic Partnerships through works, and therefore collect taxes to fund that work (if taxes are even necessary to encourage that work; they may not be!)

CON has argued counterclaims, to reiterate

1) "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention." DISPROVEN

2) "The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship." RED HERRING

3) "There is no contract signed between soldiers of a military unit to cohabitate - they do because they are ordered to do so." DISPROVEN, STRAW MAN

4) A corporation is not an individual for the purposes of this debate. RED HERRING

5) Regarding any taxes, taxes are collected via authorization from the tax code, a government edict. "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion." ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, DISPROVEN

6) Government "carrots" exist only because of taxes paid by the citizenry. RED HERRING

The above statements by con, have ALL been established as fallacious, or otherwise unconnected to the debate;

In short, All of CON's arguments have been addressed, and found wanting. May the most well-reasoned argument win.
wrichcirw

Con

In this round I will do the following:

1) Addresses PRO's counterarguments
2) Demonstrate how PRO COULD HAVE WON THIS DEBATE
3) Reaffirm the summary I profferred in round #4, i.e. my closing statement.


1) PRO's counterarguments.

a) PRO states that "argument from authority is not a valid form of argument without REASONS to back it up." I'm sorry, but this is childish. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Both were pivotal in the debate surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution. Both were key figures in the birth of this country. If this is not enough "reason" to have them "argue from authority", I will simply say that they have more of an expert opinion than anyone that has ever lived, as do all the Founding Fathers. They may not be perfect, but they are the best we got. I simply cannot believe PRO wishes to waste time discussing this point.

I reaffirm that "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."

b) I will ignore his philosophical arguments, as they seem to argue from an assumption of fallibility, which is pointless and not constructive to debating, as we are not arguing about concepts of truth and validity. We are arguing about whether or not sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

c) A Domestic Partnership Contract is "any contract by which two private individuals agree to share expenses and pool resources in a domestic setting." This contract is a private good. This is essentially akin to two people drawing up a budget for themselves, and defining who takes out the garbage, who buys the groceries, etc..

d) Finally, FINALLY, PRO gets to the meat of the debate by clearing up the misconception that he was talking about military benefits. He is now clearly NOT talking about military benefits, but the benefits of MARRIAGE. For some reason he put this in the context of the military for whatever reason I cannot fathom because military service is clearly irrelevant to the concept of marriage and actually hurts his argument. I have been waiting this entire debate for PRO to mention this one word, MARRIAGE. This is PRO's strongest point, and yet he spends only one paragraph on it in this ENTIRE DEBATE, and he puts it in the absolute worst possible context.

Since my opponent does not discuss marriage, and the burden of proof is on him, I will also choose to not discuss marriage. I will now address PRO's points in regards to military marriages specifically:

i) off-base housing - this is the same as private actors finding housing and cohabitating WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The government cuts them a check as PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, the private actors take care of their living arrangements. This has nothing to do with domestic partnership contracts - it is a benefit associated with EMPLOYMENT. Unmarried, single military personnel living off-base enjoy these housing benefits as well.

ii) married housing - Servicemen/women do not have a say when it comes to married housing on-base. They are ordered by their commander to occupy a house with their family, and they follow orders. There is NO CONTRACT INVOLVED in regards to cohabitation or to seeking companionship. Thus this is not a sanctioned domestic partnership contract.

Also, one can argue that for the interests of mobilization and deployment, the government should NOT provided SEPARATE housing accomodations to married personnel, and that ALL military personnel should live together AS ORDERED by their commanders, and that marriage detracts from a soldier's obligations. Ask any marine about this, whose life is almost subsumed by camraderie with their semper fi brethren, and they will tell you that the government did not issue you a wife.

iii) separation pay - Separation pay is highly contested. It goes against the spirit of equal opportunity employment by discriminating against unmarried military personnel. Marriage detracts from a soldier's obligations in that SEPARATE HABITATION REQUIREMENTS APART FROM YOUR UNIT actually diminishes a unit's ability to mobilize and deploy. We are no longer talking about cohabitation here, but rather its opposite.

iv) spouse insurance - SGLI is a private-sector-equivalent form of life insurance, and it is subsidized by the government. The subsidy is highly contested. Life insurance itself has nothing to do with a "domestic partnership contract" - you can assign anyone to be a beneficiary, even a non-profit corporation. Thus my opponent's use of the phrase "spouse insurance" is highly misleading, as both married and unmarried personnel can enjoy SGLI.

v) survivor benefits - same as life insurance, see above.

Therefore, as we can see, benefits accrued to married military personnel are pretty much the same as those accrued to unmarried military personnel. There is of course a degree to which married military personnel receive more of these benefits than unmarried personnel, but whether or not this is a "legitimate government interest" is highly debatable in that it overtly discriminates against unmarried personnel. Marriage in the context of the military also dramatically reduces a unit's ability to mobilize and deploy, and actually creates SEPARATE HABITATION arrangements, NOT COHABITATION arragements in that soldiers should live together to be more effective. Regardless, my opponent has chosen not to debate these issues. The key is to remember that the government is a serviceman/woman's EMPLOYER.


2) Demonstrate how PRO COULD HAVE WON THIS DEBATE

If you want to know how, see the comments section. (irrelevant to the actual debate)



3) Closing Statement

I will reaffirm all of my round #4 closing comments. I will add:

A) Over 90% of PRO's statements have been red herrings, and that apart from his voluminous and irrelevant philosophical ramblings, things like government "carrots" were HIS POINTS, not mine. Government carrots and corporations as individuals are indeed red herrings, and especially in the case of corporations (MONSANTO) were quite irresponsible of my opponent to bring up.

B) My opponent asserts that I believe "government has a responsibility to encourage Domestic Partnerships through works, and therefore collect taxes to fund that work." No, absolutely not, he is putting words into my mouth.

I assert that government's role is "to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms." My opponent does too, indeed these are his words. However, to "fight [for] that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens," it may at times have to compromise the freedoms of some of its citizenry for the "greater good", and that Freedom is not free.

C) Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention

D) The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship.

E) PRO did not discuss marriage, only military marriage. The various stipulations and regulations accommodating marriage in the military DETRACTS FROM A UNIT'S ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND DEPLOY, and SEPARATES THE SOLDIER FROM HIS UNIT.

F) If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, PROVEN.

G) MY OPPONENT HAS NO ARGUMENT. HE FAILED TO DISCUSS MARRIAGE, AND THUS DESERVES TO LOSE THIS DEBATE. BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON MY OPPONENT AS STATED IN ROUND #1 AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY.

I thank Jarhyn for hosting this decidely intellectual debate, and thank the voters in advance for voting CON.
Debate Round No. 5
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
eh, if nothing else you are fun to banter with.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Equivocation != improper usage. I used it wrong because I can be an idiot. You equivocated the improper usage with something else.

Further, you made the claim that even in the best of cases government is evil. In the best of cases, government WOULDN'T be such an evil; even in other cases, the evil does not arise from the government, the evil arises from the imperfect people. You would do well to recognize that distinction.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Anyway, my bad, just distracting myself from a different debate I don't think I will win. Cheers, and sorry about the Godwin, lol, didn't know that was a popular saying.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"Mathematical proofs are about relationships. IF, THEN. The proof does not assume that IF will always be satisfied, it just states what happens when it is. This is not an assumption in the classical sense."

Then perhaps one can say that in an imperfect world, one must assume perfection in order to achieve it. That does not mean that perfection can ever be achieved in an imperfect world, only that it can be imagined.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"You're equivocating "wish"; it's apparent that "wish" in this usage means to do all due diligence in service of ethical requirements."

I'm not equivocating, lol, YOU are.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
You're equivocating "wish"; it's apparent that "wish" in this usage means to do all due diligence in service of ethical requirements.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Mathematical proofs are about relationships. IF, THEN. The proof does not assume that IF will always be satisfied, it just states what happens when it is. This is not an assumption in the classical sense.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"it's categorically true for ALL governments which wish to be legitimate."

Godwin.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
There are ALWAYS assumptions in any mathematical proof, even a tautology.

Given A,
A=A

Without those assumptions, it would not hold, it would be imperfect.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
But the debate as not whether THIS government (or any other existing government) is authorized, only whether or not in an ethically authorized government whether sanctioned domestic partnerships constitute a legitimate government interest. I had no burden to prove it for a given government; it's categorically true for ALL governments which wish to be legitimate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
JarhynwrichcirwTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering TMR
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
JarhynwrichcirwTied
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: con used great quotes
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
JarhynwrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments