Nothing wrong with parents killing their children as long as I agree with it.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Another disclaimer, this has nothing to do with abortion.
Questions and comments, please drop a comment, send a message.
- The resolution is "nothing wrong with parents killing their children as long as I agree with it." Therefore, for this to be a true proposition, you have to demonstrate that the rightness or wrongness of a parent killing their own child is contingent upon your agreement. Simply enough there are some things you agree with that are wrong, and some things you don't agree with that are right.
- I look forward to the argument that pro's opinion is objectively correct.
- I think we get that, however it is irrelevant to the resolution. Being self-defense, this killing would have been wrong regardless of if you agreed with it or not.
- I made a mistake in the previous round, I meant to say the killing would "not," be wrong, but the same idea applies. Regardless of if you agree or not, self defense would still be ethically permissible.
I didn't say the agreement determines what is right.
- This is what the resolution states, so this would just be a logical contradiction on your part: "Nothing wrong with parents killing their children as long as I agree with it."
- It says there is nothing wrong, as long as you agree with it. This means that the rightness or wrongness of said action is contingent upon such. Do you have an argument for this?
My agreement doesn't make something right. I'm only agreeing with what already is.
- Well, thank you for the concession in that case.
- The resolution is "Nothing wrong with parents killing their children as long as I agree with it." This means that whether or not pro agrees with an event determines its morality. Mall then admits that these actions are right or wrong regardless of if he agrees with them, so the logical contradiction is apparent with the resolution that states there is nothing wrong only as long as he agrees.