The Instigator
MouthWash
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
angrypenguin75
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The initial gaining of consciousness is required for rights.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 24704
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

MouthWash

Pro

One pro-life argument that fetuses have the inherent capacity for intelligence and should thus be considered humans. But to point out that fetuses have an 'inherent capacity for intelligence', and therefore deserve protections creates a weird philosophical concern. Bread has an inherent capacity for intelligence, because if you convert the calories in bread through a human digestive system, a decent proportion of those carbon atoms become integrated into a thinking, sentient system. This leads to the absurd conclusion that bread should be given rights as well.

I thank my opponent in advance. All the usual rules apply.
angrypenguin75

Con

I accept.
I first want to thank Mouthwash for starting this debate. This is my first debate, and I am excited to begin. Personally, I do not think any reasonable person would say anything without the capacity for consciousness is deserving of rights. Nevertheless, I will do my best to offer a challenging debate.

Consciousness is not a pre-requisite of obtainting rights. First of all, the term "rights" has multiple meanings. The purpose of rights is to protect an individual from the oppression of another, or ensure certain privaleges. Without a clear definition of the rights being discussed, it could be said that trees have rights because it is illegal to set fire to them or cut them down in forests. Similar things could be said for water, and other fellow inanimate objects.
Debate Round No. 1
MouthWash

Pro

I meant natural rights. The right to live and not be acted aggressively upon. Don't use semantics, I've made it clear that we're discussing abortion.
angrypenguin75

Con

angrypenguin75 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MouthWash

Pro

Extend all arguments.
angrypenguin75

Con

angrypenguin75 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
"Personally, I do not think any reasonable person would say anything without the capacity for consciousness is deserving of rights."

That's not what you're arguing. You are arguing that anything that DOES have the capacity for consciousness should have rights. And I don't see any comments saying that you misread the resolution other than yourself.
Posted by angrypenguin75 4 years ago
angrypenguin75
@mouthwash not scared. As I explained, and as some others noted in this comment section, I had misread the resolution. I'm sorry that an experienced debated should have to put up with an honest mistake. If I could have backed out I would. I will accept as forfeit.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
@BlackVoid, against abortion, I mean.

@angrypenguin75, wtf are you talking about? If you're scared I'll use semantics, clarify your own definition of rights.
Posted by angrypenguin75 4 years ago
angrypenguin75
and by unknowingly I mean that by my own haste to take this case I made the mistake of not reading more carefully. Live and learn.
Posted by angrypenguin75 4 years ago
angrypenguin75
and by unknowingly I mean that by my own haste to take this case I made the mistake of not reading more carefully. Live and learn.
Posted by angrypenguin75 4 years ago
angrypenguin75
As a first timer, I unknowingly accepted this debate without considering that the resolution and initial argument make it basically impossible to take a logical stance on the subject. Please bare with me and the absurdity that ensues as my argument unfolds.
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
"I actually do consider the unconsciousness argument to be a legitimate point"

Why?
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
@thett3, I actually do consider the unconsciousness argument to be a legitimate point. But it is something I want to avoid here.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
**required for rights
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
You should change the resolution or make a note stating that the initial GAINING of consciousness is required for life, because right now someone could screw you up with a semantic type argument:

"If you affirm the resolution that means that unconscious people dont have rights" or some such bs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
MouthWashangrypenguin75Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit gives Pro conduct. Pro also gets arguments because Con misinterpreted the intent of the resolution and hence their counter was flawed.