Slippery Slope arguments are useful
Debate Rounds (3)
Con has yet to rebut anything they said in Round 1, all of which I assert as true and am meeting my burden of proof by doing so.
Con's point in Round 2 is that men said 'what is next?' but he provides no evidence of them ever saying this because it's a lie and didn't happen.
Animals do not have the right to vote, this however has nothing to do with the resolution whatsoever.
Their reason for not wanting women's rights was 'BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.'
That is a slippery slope argument used against women's rights.
It is also one singular example of slippery slope not being valid but still being useful as a debate tool which is, after all, sufficient enough to support the resolution.
I thank thee for this easy won, good fellow!
Here's a link for evidence of slippery slope being a valid argumentation in ethics:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really think any sort of an argument took place. They both just provided links as their proof so the only thing I could judge this debate on was the reliability of the sources and since Tough's source provided more information and was more reliable Tough wins the sources points. Con used a newspaper as evidence which is often bias. The BBC provides a balanced argument and is therefore considered to be more reliable.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.