You choose the topic
Debate Rounds (4)
If all of the topics offered are offensive, too serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely.
No real rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, but hopefully I won't have to.
3K characters. How short. The debate does not say if we should accept right now, or present my arguments, but I will just provide my arguments in this round. I choose that we should wear bowler hats, CON.
I am Con, so I am saying we should not wear them.
Let's quickly talk about the burdens. The burden is shared, as both sides will argue.
My framework will be centered around liberty.
"Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others " .
Liberty is a very famous law, as well as the harm principle, meaning that we can do anything unless it does not hurt others, it is from John Stuart Mill. It is right, because we need the liberty of choice, and self-ownership to have our own rights, otherwise we will live like slaves. I will tell in my arguments why liberty helps my case.
Argument 1: Liberty
As I presented in my framework, liberty is the freedom of choice. Harm principle is that you can do anything unless it does not harm others. We have the liberty of choice to not wear bowling hats, some people might think that it is ugly. We should not restrict this, because everyone's liberty and freedom of choice is important. Not having the rule does not harm anyone, even without the rule you can still wear them anyways, but making this law will restrict them, and some people would not want to do this, and we are taking away their liberty. They don't need to wear this, as the harm principle says that it does nt harm others.
Therefore, 2 laws follow that we should not all wear bowling hats, vote for Con.
I proved that restriciting and having a rule to wear bowling hats takes away their liberty, and we don't need to because of the harm principle. If my opponent get argue with these to good rules in the U.S., and in almost everywhere else in the world, I invite them to do so.
For fairness sake however, Con should pass on his final round since he made an argument on Bowler hats in round one. Otherwise he will get one more speech than I do.
First I want to make a note of 'should' versus 'must'. 'Should' implies that something is a good idea, whereas 'must' implies something has to happen. In order to win this debate, I only need to show that it would be a good idea for everyone to wear bowler hats. I am under no obligation to show that everyone must wear them.
The analysis between framework and case-debate here blends together pretty seamlessly, so I'll be tackling them in one lump sum. Con's summation of Mill's Harm principle is incomplete and doesn't grant him much in regards to making liberty a voting issue. The argument is that people's actions shouldn't be restricted unless they could harm others - this is an epistemology unsound weighing mechanism for justice as we can never know the consequences of our actions before they happen. Through mill's harm principle I could pour out my drink on the ground not thinking anything of it, in that moment my action doesn't hurt anyone. however if someone later slipped on it, I violate their sense of liberty through my action.
It is an incomplete mechanism and should be rejected outright.
Con's analysis contrasting Liberty and Freedom is valuable however, and it a reason to vote Pro in this debate. Because the resolution says 'should' rather than 'must', no one's sense of liberty is at stake. One could recognize that it is a good idea to wear bowler hats and still choose not to do so just as one may recognize it is a good idea to exercise and eat healthy but choose not to do so.
Con proves one thing: Everyone must not wear bowler hats, not that Everyone should not wear bowler hats. This nets Con no offensive ground, so the best he can hope for at this point is a tie. At the point that the burden of proof is shared, I win if I can show even one reason why Everyone should wear bowler hats.
Reasons we should all wear Bowler Hats
1. They're stylish and classy. If everyone wore bowler hats then we would all look a lot fancier
2. It would mean no one would wear snapbacks. This would be a major upset to the dudebro culture which would make the world a better place.
3. It would create a sense of unity. When we're all wearing bowler hats, we'll feel more connected to one another. We'll share a common bowler-hat-humanity - we can discuss hat upkeep tips, and chat about what kinds of bowler hats we like.
4. It would be a boom to industry. All of those hats are going to have to come from somewhere, can you say jobs much?
My opponent does not rebut my framework, and does not make a new framework, so I assume that voters must follow my framework.Should v.s. MustMy opponent says that "should" basically means something is a good idea. He says that "must" is it needs to happen. That is why I made my argument of everyoneshouldnot were bowlers hat's, because some people might not want to, (Like me.) Therefore, I said that we should not all wear bowler hats, because some people don't want to. I agree with my opponent that the resolution isshould.
1. Not all people might think that it is classy, therefore not everyone should were bowling hats, as the liberty of choice says that we can own ourselves, and somepeople might think it is not classy, and they would not wear it, therefore vote for Con. And classy does not mean we should all wear it.
2. My opponent says that then we don't need to wear snapbacks. At least snap backs have designs, when bowler hats don't.
In baseball, no one would, or should wear bowler hats. They should were snapbacks.
Baseball players were snapbacks too. This still does not fill his burden, because my opponent fails to say why snapbacks are bad, and we don't need to wear them, and should not wear them. My opponent does not say why the world will be a better place.
3. My opponent says that we will all be connected. We can all be connected by snapbacks too, and it is better, because (1) it is cooler, and it has more design. My opponent does not say why we are only connected in bowler hats, you can feel the same way in other hats also.
4. Then all the other jobs of making other hats will be worse.
My opponent gives bare assertions.
My opponent says that the resolution is should, so my argument does not impact. But I already stated it, let me state it again.
That is why I made my argument of everyoneshouldnot were bowlers hat's, because some people might not want to, (Like me.) Therefore, I said that we should not all wear bowler hats, because some people don't want to.
I had two parts of my argument. That was my first part of liberty. I also had a must part, and my opponent only refuted that.
Vote for Con. It is a easy vote. My opponent gives bare assertions that bowler hats are cool, when I said that snapbacks are way cooler, and I gave a reason, because snapbacks have designs, and also children like them, but they would feel uncomfortable in bowler hats, and it looks strange. My opponent says that there will be no more snapbacks, when I showed that snap backs are cool, so my opponent's first 2 arguments are not met. I said that we can all be connected by wearing snapbacks too, not only bowler hats. My opponent tackles half of my argument, the off-topic part, and does not attack my should part. Any my opponent can't rebut it because of my framework, and my opponeny cannot refute my framework because it is unfair to do so.
Therefore, Vote Con.
Con completely glosses over the analysis i make on Mill being an incomplete weighing mechanism, so count it as a concession. At the point he concedes my arguments on Mill he has no way to measure the value of liberty as it has been presented it -- we can't know if an action will harm someone before it has occurred, only in foresight. Mill's harm principle relies on the ability to know the future perfectly, otherwise one would arbitrarily violate principles of justice by matter of chance.
With no weighing mechanism, justice it becomes a lofty ideologue. Don't vote on it as it means essentially nothing in this debate. Rather, shift to the focus of the debate towards freedom. If we can't know whether something will harm another before doing it, than potentially any action could harm or fail to harm another.
Con claims I concede framework, but the arguments are pretty clear. Don't do his work for him.
1. Reducing the argument to a matter of opinion doesn't do much. If even one person out of the billions of people on earth think that bowler hats make them or anyone else look fancy then it is a net benefit to the Pro. Vote here on the risk that we raise the standard of class by even a little bit.
2. If we bring bowler hats back, there's nothing stopping us from giving them designs just the same as Snapbacks. Aside from that, snapbacks are douchey and a callback to dudebro culture. The impact for them being bad is their linkage to that culture.
As for baseball players, they don't wear snapbacks, they wear baseball caps. Snapbacks are a particular style of hats with a flat brim. Secondly, baseball players should really be wearing something with more protection than a thin cloth hat anyway. I never say people should wear bowler hats all the time, so in something like baseball people should wear helmets almost exclusively.
3. The connection we would share through snapbacks is a connection wrought with poor taste in music, toxic masculinity, impulsive action and lack-of-showering. Anyway, at best Con shows that this argument is not mutually exclusive, but that isn't a reason to vote against it. Showing that any other style of hat connects us better doesn't net him ground against bowler hats but rather for some other kind of hat. That's a lot like collecting monopoly money in chess, good for you that you have more of it, but it doesn't give you any advantage.
4. Says who? You can't just claim that one increase in industry undoes another without a warrant.
Again, any benefit to Pro is a reason to vote pro. Con can pull no impact off of his justice framework, so he can hope for a tie at best.
Extend the should v. must analysis here. There was a reason I grouped them all together. This debate takes place up-top. Con doesn't respond to the Mill analysis, so he concedes his ground here.
Finally, even if Con showed that Snapbacks were the best thing ever, that wasn't his burden. It nets him no ground.
I don't have time. I need to log out soon, so this will be short. (math competition, long story)
As I told, rebutting in the third round is bad conduct, vote for Con for conduct, and the framework cannot be contested in the third round. Pro says " we can't know if an action will harm someone before it has occurred, only in foresight." In Pro's logic, that means we can kill each other, because we don't know it will harm us, because it never occured. We do liberty on foresight, also there is no need to say this, because liberty is such self-ownership, you can do whatever you want, and you will know it before.
1. My framework was based on liberty. So, even one person is very important. Also, it won't be one, because many children couldn't like those classical hats, they like caps much better, that is logic. So, it is not 1 out few billion. Vote for me because not everyone likes bowler hats, so we should not make them where it.
2. If it is a bowler hat, with a design of a snapback, it is not a bowler hat at all. Bowler hats are black, or dark brown, and don't have designs. Then, it will be called bowlersnap, but there is not such thing.
My point wasn't that. My point was, bowler hats shouldn't be used everywhere. If my opponent's burden is one person, it is too unfair, so my opponent's burden is to make everyone wear them. My rebuttal here was the baseball players can't in the stadiums. There team isn't even on the hats. Pro concedes, and says that we should not wear bowler hats all the time. Then when? Once your whole lifetime? Let's say everytime, unless you sleep.
3. Is music good? Even thought snapbakcs don't have a musical connection does not mean they have any connection. Also, what is a musical connection. Watching the same music? Liking music? How can a hat give a connection? They are all questions my opponent must answer, or it will refute his case.
4. Says who what? Of course, if there are only bowler hats then of course some jobs will be ruined.
Pro says that my liberty does not impact. It does. I am saying that we can make our own choices, which means we don't need to wear snapbacks, which refutes my opponent's side, deserving me the win, and my opponent fails to refute this.
Harm principle wasn't my main argument. My main argument was that we have self-ownership, as liberty, a moral framework says, and we can choose not to wear them.
My opponent fails to refute my actual case. He tackles a minor detail, but that does not impact for winning for him. I never said snapbacks are the best thing ever. I said that some people might believe that they are good. My opponent says that it is not my burden. I agree, but my point was that others can believe that other hats are better.
There are 3 ways you can vote this. 2 ways are voting for me. One way, (the bad way, and the unfrequent one) is voting for Pro.
1. The Mill analysis is made in round two, it is not new in round three. Con claims in round two that I fail to rebut his framework, but never responds to the mill analysis. That is on him, don't let him weasel out of his failure to respond to framework now.
2. This debate's messy pacing is Con's fault. He doesn't read the rules closely, and because of that starts debating far too early. I give him a pass there, but he doesn't get to try and call an ethical foul because of it now.
3. the Should/Must analysis in conjunction with the mill analysis means Con doesn't get access to his liberty claims. Do not grant him ANY ground here.
The best Con can hope for is a tie, if I show any advantage at all to everyone wearing bowler hats, then that shifts the debate over to the pro.
1. The liberty framework is shot. I respond to them in round 1, extend throughout, and shut down Con's baseless conduct claims up top. If there is a risk that we raise the standard of class for anyone, then you vote Pro. Con's only argument here is 'I don't wanna, so we're not gonna'. He doesn't have the authority to make those kind of sweeping claims, and you need to shut down that poorly constructed liberty plea with your vote.
2. Bowler hats don't have to be a single black color. They are defined (by Con in round 1) by a phsyical appearance. They could be pink, checkered, glittery purple or any other color. what matters in making them bowler hats is their form.
I agree that making a claim 'If I show one person should wear a bowler hat, then I win' is unfair, but that isn't the claim I make. When Con drops his liberty framework by failing to respond to my consolidated attacks on it, he forfeits all impacts on his singular impact of personal liberty. So, if I show the risk of ANY advantages to everyone wearing bowler hats, then I win when burdens are balanced.
Con frames the debate through Mill, but NEVER responds to my analysis that the Harm Principle is an incomplete and flawed weighing mechanism for justice. The entirety of his advocacy is centered on the principle, yet he glosses over my attacks and claims I ignore his framework. That is a damning mistake, and it will be the reason he loses this debate.
3. Con's response here is a moving target. He doesn't get to change the terms of the argument in his final speech, then demand an answer. The prior answer was an extension of 'dudebro culture is bad, and snapbacks are a cultural signifier of that.' It's like Con is only reading the prior rounds and responding to them independent of their context holistically.
Con's round one has a framework on Mill's harm principle, an argument impacting liberty, then a conclusion. That is the entirety of his argument. I take down Mill and he drops the argument - he cannot win.
If I have ANY advantages, then I win. Don't let him steal time in the next round by making responses there. doing so forfeits on conduct.
I will waive this round. Pro keeps saying the best I can get is a tie. I said he did not make a framework, and I was the only one with framework, so we choose my framework. Voters, keep in mind of my framework, it is the only one, and my arguments. Pro's arguments can be argued by any hat.
I waive this round. If you make the right choice, vote CON!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.