Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A flawed argument?: you decide

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some people have argued that the following syllogism is impossible to defeat:

1) Marriage can be linked to intrinsic procreation

2) Intrinsic procreation is special and of value, therefore it is good

C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way.

I'll offer my reasons I think this syllogism is flawed, then you, the people of DDO, decide what you think.

== Premise 1 ==

(1) The idea of procreation being "intrinsic" to heterosexual relationships is wrong. For something to have an intrinsic property, the property must always be present. Random House defines "intrinsic" as a property that is inherent based on the thing's very nature. People sometimes say that gold is "intrinsically valuable," which -- according to the dictionary -- means that gold has value without reference to any other properties of gold. If gold needs other properties, e.g. a small supply or a large demand, in order for it to have value, then it is not "intrinsically" valuable. Heterosexual couples cannot "intrinsically" procreate because it is not sufficient that they are heterosexual for them to procreate. They also need to be *fertile.* If not all heterosexual unions are procreative, then procreation is not an intrinsic property of all heterosexual couples.

(2) Marriage cannot be linked to procreation. Marriage does not demonstrably increase procreation. The mere fact that procreation sometimes happens inside marriage does not mean that marriage is "linked" to procreation. What is the link? Society has claimed that procreation is one of the justifications for marriage, but marriage can just as easily be linked to: (a) solidifying the connection and creating power alliances between two formerly separate family lineages, (b) increasing the stability of the parternships within them, (c) being a convenient contractual arrangement that comes with a bundle of rights (e.g. powers of attorney), (d) being an ordering that makes the sharing of property among couples easier and providing a relatively predictable and streamlined method for dividing up property upon the dissolution of the relationship. No reason is given that marriage should be linked *exclusively* to procreation.

(3) If marriage is linked to procreation, then why are non-procreative couples permitted to get married or stay married.

(4) If someone gets a sex change, the law treats that person as having changed gender. Unions between a transgendered individual and an opposite gendered person are not procreative in the sense that those two individuals cannot have children with each other.

(5) The definition of marriage as being procreative is far too overbroad to justify why marriage exists, given all the non-procreative couples who are permitted to marry.

(6) The Supreme Court specifically said in Griswold v. Connecticut that the marital relationship confers a right to use contraceptives, i.e. marriage involves a right *not* to have children. So marriage cannot be linked to procreation. The Supreme Court has explicitly de-linked it.

== Premise 2 ==

(1) Procreation with one's marriage partner is not inherently special or good. Adoptive children are not an inferior class of children. And the state doesn't care one way or another how the children of the next generation are produced. Criminal laws that once banned sex outside marriage were *repealed* to reflect the fact that the state no longer frowns upon sex outside marriage and does not *require* that all procreative activity occur within marriage.

(2) Most heterosexual women can only cum from oral sex. Inherent procreation in this context really just means penis-in-vagina sex. Given that most women prefer oral sex, there is no reason given that heterosexual sex is better than oral sex. Yes, it can produce children, but we've already covered that: the state doesn't really care if you have kids naturally or through in vitro fertilization. In addition, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court said that it's not the government's business what type of sex you are having. If you want to only have oral sex or anal sex, that is your prerogative. The state has no right to impose a requirement that all sex be penis-in-vagina. And other methods of sex can be just as pleasurable and solidify a couples bond just as much. Or even more so, given that oral sex is more pleasurable for most women.

(3) Countries with overpopulation problems would probably disagree that procreation is a good thing. Again, no justification is offered to prove that inherent procreation is always good.

(4) Incestuous couples are inherently procreative, but their procreation is not deemed good. It is clearly not the case that all inherent procreation is good. So if only some types of inherent procreation are good, why are they good? The state seems to have expressed a preference for healthy offspring *over* a preference for inherent procreation, given its bans on incest. If a brother and sister get married to each other, the state would actually prefer non-inherent procreation (procreation external to the relationship) because it is more likely to produce genetically healthy offspring.

(5) Most books that describe utopian societies have all procreation and child-rearing happening *outside* of committed relationships. The only way to teach children to go against their selfish nature and to ensure they work for the betterment of society, rather than the privileging of their own dynasty, is to educate them and raise them outside the family unit. To the extent that inherent procreation promotes dynasties (like the Romney or Walon (Wal-mart)), it is actually bad for society. Society would prefer that dynasties not attempt to self-perpetuate by keeping a tight lock on child-bearing and rearing.

== Conclusion ==

This conclusion has two false inferences.

(1) First, just because intrinsic procreation is good does not mean that marriage is good when it is linked *only* to intrinsic procreation. When marriage discriminates against non-procreative couples, it is bad. It makes those couples second-class citizens in the eyes of the law, denies them rights inherent to marriage (e.g. spousal privilege, power of attorney, inheritance rights), and denigrates their relationship as inferior. Marriage would be just as good if it promoted stable relationships among same-sex couples and ensured that their children are raised in a stable environment. And as Justice Kennedy pointed out in Windsor, the message sent to the children of same-sex couples if their parents *cannot* marry is that they are not a normal family and that society believes they are second-class citizens based on who their parents are. Limiting marriage only to procreative marriages actually harms the children who are being raised by non-procreative couples and assaults their and their parents dignity as a human being.

(2) Second, saying marriage should stay the way it is because it is currently "good" denies the possibility that it can be "better." Adding gay couples to marriage does nothing to detract from the marriages of opposite sex couples. It does not decrease their incentive to procreate. It does not make their marriages any unhappier or less valuable. Their partners are the same people.

(3) This conclusion is nothing more than an appeal to tradition. If marriage never changed, it would still be limited to people of the same race. The syllogism automatically fails because it does not include a proof that marriage becomes *worse* when non-procreative couples are added to it, whereas there is reason to believe it can become *better* when it promotes more stability in those relationships, ends invidious discrimination by denying the institution and its associated rights to those people, and encourages those individuals to reduce the burden on the foster care system and raise children of their own in a stable environment.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:22:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is. Both Contraction and myself stopped using it since it was flawed.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:22:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree that it's fatally flawed, but when your reasons for believing that an argument is "perfect" have nothing to do with objective reality and more to do with subjective feelings about the thing against which the argument is made, it's very easy to uncritically accept something like that.

But hey... blindness and ignorance abound on all sides of the political spectrum.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:29:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just so everyone knows what the background of this is: http://www.debate.org...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:40:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:18:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Some people have argued that the following syllogism is impossible to defeat:

1) Marriage can be linked to intrinsic procreation

2) Intrinsic procreation is special and of value, therefore it is good

C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way.

If that is supposed to be a formal syllogism, then it is logically invalid. I mean, there is no logical operator in premise one except for possibility. The second premise is categorical, that intrinsic procreation falls into the category of "good". Therefore, to formally write the first two premises in precise language:

1) It is possible for marriage to be linked to intrinsic procreation
2) Intrinsic Procreation is good & special & of value

Simplified premise 2. Thus, the only conclusion that deductively follows by using the substitution rule (with "intrinsic procreation" being the operating term):

C) It is possible for marriage to be linked to something good, special & of value

Which is completely different to the conclusion originally drawn:

"C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way"

Thus, the conclusion cannot possibly follow even if both oremises are true.

Wtf btw, the "intrinsic" adjective got moved from referring to procreation to now referring to "being linked". You. Can't. Do. That!

That's like saying "the green dog ate a crunchy snack" is equivilent to "the crunchy dog ate a green snack"!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:48:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:40:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/2/2015 7:18:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Some people have argued that the following syllogism is impossible to defeat:

1) Marriage can be linked to intrinsic procreation

2) Intrinsic procreation is special and of value, therefore it is good

C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way.

If that is supposed to be a formal syllogism, then it is logically invalid. I mean, there is no logical operator in premise one except for possibility. The second premise is categorical, that intrinsic procreation falls into the category of "good". Therefore, to formally write the first two premises in precise language:

1) It is possible for marriage to be linked to intrinsic procreation
2) Intrinsic Procreation is good & special & of value

Simplified premise 2. Thus, the only conclusion that deductively follows by using the substitution rule (with "intrinsic procreation" being the operating term):

C) It is possible for marriage to be linked to something good, special & of value

Which is completely different to the conclusion originally drawn:

"C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way"

Thus, the conclusion cannot possibly follow even if both oremises are true.

Wtf btw, the "intrinsic" adjective got moved from referring to procreation to now referring to "being linked". You. Can't. Do. That!

That's like saying "the green dog ate a crunchy snack" is equivilent to "the crunchy dog ate a green snack"!

If this were a logic clause, supposedly the syllogism would have definitions.

The definition offered by the person arguing here for "inherent procreation" = a natural ordering that can produce offspring under the right circumstances.

So the syllogism should really be:

(1) Marriage can be linked to a natural pairing of male and female that can produce offspring under the right circumstances.

(2) A pairing of male and female that can produce offspring under the right circumstances is special and valuable

(3) Because such a pairing is special and valuable, it is good.

(4) Marriage is good only if it is linked exclusively to such a pairing.

(5) Marriage must be linked only to such a pairing because otherwise it is bad.

The most obvious problem is premise 4 because it introduces an "only if" and an "exclusively" out of nowhere, with no justification.

And yeah, it is funny how "intrinsically" and "intrinsic" are used interchangeably.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, it's never explained why "the right circumstances" being that "both male and female are fertile" is a "special" circumstance. Special implies some uniqueness and superiority to other methods, but it's never justified why the fertility of both partners is a more special circumstance than the circumstances required for same-sex procreation (IVF with a donor).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 8:49:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:18:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Some people have argued that the following syllogism is impossible to defeat:

1) Marriage can be linked to intrinsic procreation

2) Intrinsic procreation is special and of value, therefore it is good

C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way.

I'll offer my reasons I think this syllogism is flawed, then you, the people of DDO, decide what you think.


Like alot of arguments it tries to make marriage only applicable to a man and woman using some sort of "procreation" argument.

Trouble is if you qualify marriage as only to couples who can produce children alot of men and women relationships would not quality eg: Infertiles.

So..............what they have to do in these arguments is create some sort of abstract notion such as "pro creative in type" or "intrinsic procreation" I find these notions questionable at best maybe even non sense or contradictory at worst.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 9:57:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

Skimming it, I don't really buy it's premise that permanence, monogamy, and fidelity are inextricably linked to the norm of child-rearing. It's proof that monogamy would be undermined by same-sex marriage is that some opponents of DOMA argued for a definition of marriage that would include polygamy. That's hardly proof of anything... The relationship at issue in Windsor was very much a monogamous, loyal, and permanent relationship, but it was childless (which is why some pro-same sex marriage advocates did not want it to be the test case). Child-rearing does not inherently promote monogamy or fidelity, as you can see from the overwhelming number of children in the African American community being raised by single mothers. The promotion of monogamy has a lot to do with the democratic ethos because polygamy is only inherent to societies that have groups of males who secure a disproportionate amount of the wealth and resources (making them both an attractive enough partner for multiple women to tie their fate to and wealthy enough to support multiple wives). Or polygamy exists in societies where the gender ratio is just ridiculously skewed. Monogamy is a way to reduce conflict in a society with an equal gender ratio because the prevalence of other arrangements creates a very unequal allocation of partnerships.

And fidelity is linked to love, and vasopressin, and ... whatever, I could go through each of those and show how it has nothing to do with child-rearing, but I find the premise really faulty. Just because those values are all associated with traditional marriage does not mean they are inextricably linked together, such that removing the procreative justification causes the entire Jenga pile to come crumbling down.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:01:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:57:56 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

Skimming it, I don't really buy it's premise that permanence, monogamy, and fidelity are inextricably linked to the norm of child-rearing.

I'd be happy to go through it point by point with you and tear it apart.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:14:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:18:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Some people have argued that the following syllogism is impossible to defeat:

1) Marriage can be linked to intrinsic procreation

2) Intrinsic procreation is special and of value, therefore it is good

C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way.

I'll offer my reasons I think this syllogism is flawed, then you, the people of DDO, decide what you think.

First, lol and starting this with not leaving us any characters to reply.

Second, let's get down to business.

1) the "link" to procreation. There is no inherent link between getting married and the physical ability to procreate (note that every other animal in the world procreated without marriage). There is a link between the benefits of marriage and the ability to FINACIALLY be able to raise a child. However, these benefits have no inherent tie to marriage. They can be separated just fine.

2) unsupport statement. Why is it special and how does "special = Ought to be preserved"? The "ought" is a moral judgement that needs to be established, and can be challenged.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:18:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:57:56 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

No the argument is from the Jim Spiegel argument which he wrote on his block. The Anderson, George, and Girgis paper is an entirely separate group of scholars who happened to reach those conclusions.


I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

Skimming it, I don't really buy it's premise that permanence, monogamy, and fidelity are inextricably linked to the norm of child-rearing. It's proof that monogamy would be undermined by same-sex marriage is that some opponents of DOMA argued for a definition of marriage that would include polygamy. That's hardly proof of anything... The relationship at issue in Windsor was very much a monogamous, loyal, and permanent relationship, but it was childless (which is why some pro-same sex marriage advocates did not want it to be the test case). Child-rearing does not inherently promote monogamy or fidelity, as you can see from the overwhelming number of children in the African American community being raised by single mothers. The promotion of monogamy has a lot to do with the democratic ethos because polygamy is only inherent to societies that have groups of males who secure a disproportionate amount of the wealth and resources (making them both an attractive enough partner for multiple women to tie their fate to and wealthy enough to support multiple wives). Or polygamy exists in societies where the gender ratio is just ridiculously skewed. Monogamy is a way to reduce conflict in a society with an equal gender ratio because the prevalence of other arrangements creates a very unequal allocation of partnerships.

And fidelity is linked to love, and vasopressin, and ... whatever, I could go through each of those and show how it has nothing to do with child-rearing, but I find the premise really faulty. Just because those values are all associated with traditional marriage does not mean they are inextricably linked together, such that removing the procreative justification causes the entire Jenga pile to come crumbling down.

If you are really interested in their argument, they have expanded that original article into a book (http://www.amazon.com...).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:18:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:57:56 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

No the argument is from the Jim Spiegel argument which he wrote on his block. The Anderson, George, and Girgis paper is an entirely separate group of scholars who happened to reach those conclusions.


I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

Skimming it, I don't really buy it's premise that permanence, monogamy, and fidelity are inextricably linked to the norm of child-rearing. It's proof that monogamy would be undermined by same-sex marriage is that some opponents of DOMA argued for a definition of marriage that would include polygamy. That's hardly proof of anything... The relationship at issue in Windsor was very much a monogamous, loyal, and permanent relationship, but it was childless (which is why some pro-same sex marriage advocates did not want it to be the test case). Child-rearing does not inherently promote monogamy or fidelity, as you can see from the overwhelming number of children in the African American community being raised by single mothers. The promotion of monogamy has a lot to do with the democratic ethos because polygamy is only inherent to societies that have groups of males who secure a disproportionate amount of the wealth and resources (making them both an attractive enough partner for multiple women to tie their fate to and wealthy enough to support multiple wives). Or polygamy exists in societies where the gender ratio is just ridiculously skewed. Monogamy is a way to reduce conflict in a society with an equal gender ratio because the prevalence of other arrangements creates a very unequal allocation of partnerships.

And fidelity is linked to love, and vasopressin, and ... whatever, I could go through each of those and show how it has nothing to do with child-rearing, but I find the premise really faulty. Just because those values are all associated with traditional marriage does not mean they are inextricably linked together, such that removing the procreative justification causes the entire Jenga pile to come crumbling down.

If you are really interested in their argument, they have expanded that original article into a book (http://www.amazon.com...).

The argument is a development of the traditional position of the Catholic Church, obviously there are many different versions. I think the paper I linked is the best argument I've seen.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:26:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

Con on gay marriage definitely makes my "short list" of untenable debate arguments

== Short list of untenable debate arguments ==

(1) Con on gay marriage
(2) Marijuana illegality
(3) Drug criminalization
(4) The Bible is the inerrant word of God
(5) Bestiality is immoral, but eating meat isn't
(6) Ancap is more humanitarian than the squo
(7) The ontological argument proves God's existence
(8) The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built
(9) The Earth is less than 10,000 years old
(10) The War in Iraq was justified
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:29:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For some reason, I have a feeling Roy would actually debate me on #10
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:34:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:29:21 AM, bluesteel wrote:
For some reason, I have a feeling Roy would actually debate me on #10

I would debate you on 10.

In retrospect it was unjustified. It was arguably justified from the knowledge we had at the time. Saddam was Intentionally misleading the international community, essentially bluffing he had WMD.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:37:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:26:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

Con on gay marriage definitely makes my "short list" of untenable debate arguments

== Short list of untenable debate arguments ==

(1) Con on gay marriage
(2) Marijuana illegality
(3) Drug criminalization
(4) The Bible is the inerrant word of God
(5) Bestiality is immoral, but eating meat isn't
(6) Ancap is more humanitarian than the squo
(7) The ontological argument proves God's existence
(8) The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built
(9) The Earth is less than 10,000 years old
(10) The War in Iraq was justified

The only ones I think are untenable are 1, 4 (depending on interpretation) and 9.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 8:20:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:34:25 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:29:21 AM, bluesteel wrote:
For some reason, I have a feeling Roy would actually debate me on #10

I would debate you on 10.

In retrospect it was unjustified. It was arguably justified from the knowledge we had at the time. Saddam was Intentionally misleading the international community, essentially bluffing he had WMD.

Basically you would make it at least arguable with your framework, which is that "justified" should be judged at the time the decision was made and not in retrospect. I would argue that whether something like the Spanish Inquisition is justified should be judged objectively, outside time, rather than based on what made sense at the time.

You'd have to not only win your framework, but it's still a hard argument. The CIA sources that were suppressed by the Bush administration were very convincing, and there's a lot of evidence that Saddam could have been pushed to permit broader inspections. And even if he had WMD's, he was still less of a threat than Iran. Kenneth Pollack of Brookings argues that the Kuwait invasion was actually a miscommunication and lines of communication between the White House and Saddam broke down. He legitimately thought we wouldn't care if he invaded, and had he known how we would have reacted, he wouldn't have done it.

So yeah, I think your framework makes the argument somewhat tenable, but it's still a hard one.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 8:22:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:37:21 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:26:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

Con on gay marriage definitely makes my "short list" of untenable debate arguments

== Short list of untenable debate arguments ==

(1) Con on gay marriage
(2) Marijuana illegality
(3) Drug criminalization
(4) The Bible is the inerrant word of God
(5) Bestiality is immoral, but eating meat isn't
(6) Ancap is more humanitarian than the squo
(7) The ontological argument proves God's existence
(8) The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built
(9) The Earth is less than 10,000 years old
(10) The War in Iraq was justified

The only ones I think are untenable are 1, 4 (depending on interpretation) and 9.

You would argue *marijuana* illegality? Again, you'd have to adopt some non-common framework like banning alcohol. And I'm very surprised you think 7 is tenable. The syllogism can be used in reverse to prove God doesn't exist, which means it can't stand alone to prove God's existence. It's not even a close argument.

To me untenable doesn't mean there are zero good arguments for a particular side, just that as long as your opponent runs the correct arguments, you are screwed.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 9:25:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:18:26 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Some people have argued that the following syllogism is impossible to defeat:

1) Marriage can be linked to intrinsic procreation
the way I interpret this sentence is 'procreation is essentially linked to marriage'. The 'can' is confusing and I think is probably there to avoid making a truth statement
2) Intrinsic procreation is special and of value, therefore it is good

This is where it makes no sense. This deserves an extra syllogism. The jump from (my interpretation) 'marriage that is unavoidably linked to procreation' is 'special, should have been one premise. But then there is an extra conclusion 'therefore it is good'. No where in the previous premises did it add that anything essentially linked to procreation is 'good'.

Zarroette also did not support this statement either. It is not even a plausible premise, rather, it's an opinion. 'X is linked to Y, therefore it is good'; this makes no sense as an argument. But if you said 'if x is linked to Y, it is a good thing. X is linked to Y . . . Its good.' Even if the logic is corrected in this way, the argument remains unsupported. The claim that it is good isn't even explained as to why it is good. How it is good and so on. Zarroette makes an unconvincing argument and so her claim can only be, even if logically coherent, an opinion.

C) Marriage is good when it is intrinsically linked to procreation, therefore it ought to stay that way.
the first phrase of the sentence should have been one of the first premises in my opinion. And then perhaps add as another premise, 'if X is good. It ought to stay that way.' And again, she did not support this as to why it is good or give examples to show that society should keep traditions if they are 'good'. For example, showing a case where a society damages itself by moving away from the norm or not following a tradition that is deemed 'good' in her terms.

Hope that adds something to this thread. It's just my two cents.

Thanks for your insightful arguments btw bluesteel.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:20:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 8:22:49 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:37:21 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/3/2015 7:26:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

Con on gay marriage definitely makes my "short list" of untenable debate arguments

== Short list of untenable debate arguments ==

(1) Con on gay marriage
(2) Marijuana illegality
(3) Drug criminalization
(4) The Bible is the inerrant word of God
(5) Bestiality is immoral, but eating meat isn't
(6) Ancap is more humanitarian than the squo
(7) The ontological argument proves God's existence
(8) The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built
(9) The Earth is less than 10,000 years old
(10) The War in Iraq was justified

The only ones I think are untenable are 1, 4 (depending on interpretation) and 9.

You would argue *marijuana* illegality? Again, you'd have to adopt some non-common framework like banning alcohol. And I'm very surprised you think 7 is tenable. The syllogism can be used in reverse to prove God doesn't exist, which means it can't stand alone to prove God's existence. It's not even a close argument.

To me untenable doesn't mean there are zero good arguments for a particular side, just that as long as your opponent runs the correct arguments, you are screwed.

I'd say we agree on what untenable means. The ontological argument is still being debated by a large number of very intelligent and intellectually honest people. It is still an acceptable mainstream philosophical position and certainly tenable.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 11:14:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:26:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

Con on gay marriage definitely makes my "short list" of untenable debate arguments

== Short list of untenable debate arguments ==

(1) Con on gay marriage
(2) Marijuana illegality
(3) Drug criminalization
(4) The Bible is the inerrant word of God
(5) Bestiality is immoral, but eating meat isn't
(6) Ancap is more humanitarian than the squo
(7) The ontological argument proves God's existence
(8) The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built
(9) The Earth is less than 10,000 years old
(10) The War in Iraq was justified

5 is open to abuse as worded.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, we can definitely say there is absolutely nothing "intrinsic" about homosexuality and procreation.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 5:55:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

What problems do you have with it?
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 5:55:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

What problems do you have with it?

I think bluesteel has done a pretty good job.

The argument doesn't offer a satisfactory response to infertility, we can just bite the bullet and say societal marriage isn't identical to the conjugal view- the conjugal view of marriage is some other thing that doesnt match up to what we consider marriage, procreation isn't intrinsic to sex much less marriage, there are strong historic roots linking marriage to economic and political considerations just as much as procreative, just off the top of my head.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:03:11 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/3/2015 5:55:56 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:52:15 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:23:32 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:09:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
So I think this paper is sort of the touchstone paper presenting the case bluesteel is critiquing:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I think it's the best constructed argument against gay marriage.

I saw this when I was constructing my argument. Do you think it's a viable argument, Raisor?

No

What problems do you have with it?

I think bluesteel has done a pretty good job.

The argument doesn't offer a satisfactory response to infertility, we can just bite the bullet and say societal marriage isn't identical to the conjugal view- the conjugal view of marriage is some other thing that doesnt match up to what we consider marriage, procreation isn't intrinsic to sex much less marriage

The problem isn't wholly that societal marriage is not the same as conjugal marriage. The problem deepens as societal marriage can be subjected to infinite regression, wherein since there is no distinct and valid end to what can be deemed marriage (qualifiers like "love" and "commitment" are not sufficient), marriage can fall into meaninglessness where anything and everything can be considered marriage.

Without a oneness in everything, a complete union, marriage can't exist. Part of that complete union involves sex, and with sex comes the potential for procreation, so complete union has the essential feature (intrinsic) of procreation. I don't see the problem with this logic.

there are strong historic roots linking marriage to economic and political considerations just as much as procreative, just off the top of my head.

The historic roots should not come into contention as that would merely be appealing to tradition.

The economic considerations should give real marriage preference over other 'marriages' due to the superior nature of real marriage, wouldn't you think?