Instigator / Pro
1
1492
rating
335
debates
40.9%
won
Topic
#3792
Nothing wrong with parents killing their children as long as I agree with it.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 25,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Basically I say there's nothing wrong with parents killing their children based on this example.
A father's son breaks into his father's house to kill him.
The father was fortunate enough to defend himself from his son's attack by the only way which left the son to perish.
Now it's that cut and dry.
Many have gotten the wrong impression from the topic title but this isn't hard to figure out.
- 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.
Round 2
Oh I agree with the example I put in round one just in case somebody was wondering.
- 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.
Round 3
The killing of who?
Are you saying self defense is wrong?
- 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.
Round 4
Correct, there's nothing wrong with the parent killing the child.
I agree with that, you apparently agree with that .
I didn't say the agreement determines what is right.
The agreeing is a sign that it is. What is right is already determined, I just agree along with it due to it being correct.
Like a machine that indicates a green light when things are working properly. The green light does not make it work properly. It's the properly working components in the machine that are responsible.
The green light is just the confirmation or verification if you will.
That machine is working right as long as that green light is on. The green light does it make it right or make it run right but is a sign of it.
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?
Round 5
"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." "
I'm telling you what my position is and you in turn tell me.
Well the debate is over. There's no use if you're not going to receive what I'm stating to you.
I gave you the analogy using the exact expression.
As long as the green light is on, the machine is running right. It doesn't make it run right .
My agreement doesn't make something right. I'm only agreeing with what already is.
What you should be asking is what justifies me to be a trustworthy sign.
Just like any sign or symptom of something, what makes that indicator valid?
I'm being charitable in effort to steer you in an argumentative direction to my position.
The problem often is misinterpreting what is said, running with it and when you have nothing else, argue with the person about what they mean by the words they choose of their volition.
But we can have a part 2 to this topic as this exchange is coming to a close.
Send me a message and we can come back to 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.
Conclusion
- 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.
Oh ye of little understanding.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I’m not even sure what mall was trying to argue. He compares his agreement to a green light on a machine where he agrees as a side connotation and the nothing wrong with it has no justification beyond the self defense. Thus the premise falls. I am confused, and con wins.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to acknowledge that there is a justification in Pro's argument, albeit one that he finds isn't clearly articulated within the bounds of the resolution. That weak link between Pro's justification and his argument may not be sufficient to uphold the resolution, but the voter has to show where Con demonstrated that to be true, rather than just saying that it's unclear and saying that that lack of clarity automatically defaults to a Con vote.
**************************************************
The father was indeed right to defend himself against his son's attack, however a parent who has cared for and nurtured their son for almost as long as they can remember and truly loves their child unconditionally would never be able to kill their son without hesitation. Even if it is in the heat of the moment, a parent who deserves to be one, regardless what immoral, illegal and heartbreaking sin their son is about to commit would never turn to taking the life of their precious and beloved boy.
From the father's fast reflexes and self defense, it is imminent that the father did not think twice before ending his son's life, proving that to him his own life is worth more than his son's, and that he prioritizes himself before his child.
A logical parent would, without a doubt act in self defense against the son's attack, but would also try to reason with the son, and find out the reason why he initiated such a horrible and unthinkable action.
Furthermore, the son could have other motives to kill his father besides just for the sake of killing him. There are other factors why the son wanted or attempted to kill his father. Other factors like mental illness, hallucinations, personality disorders and schizophrenia should also be considered as they are the roots of violent and illogical behaviors.
Besides, leaving the son to perish isn't the only way to resolve this terrible conflict. The father could or could have tried to solve it diplomatically; in a peaceful manner.
Whilst it can be contradictory mentioning that father might not have had sufficient time to both defend himself and calm his son down to stop his son from completing his "mission". An attempt defintely could have been made as a father 's love would do anything to save his son, from hurting others and himself. Thus, the original claim that there was no other happily ever after to this gruesome story plot than the son dying is false and giving people the wrong idea that killing is the only way that one can get out harmless when encountering an altercation regardless of the attacker is someone you know and dearly loved is trying to murder you.
A father and son, no matter what should never have to witness the death of the other under their own hand. Being the older and wiser one, a father has to take it upon himself to understand why his child is behaving this way, and preventing a blood bath from occurring.