Instigator / Pro
1
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
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
Winner
1
2

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
Pro
#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.
Con
#2
  • 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
Pro
#3
Oh I agree with the example I put in round one just in case somebody was wondering.
Con
#4
  • 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
Pro
#5
The killing of who?

Are you saying self defense is wrong?
Con
#6
  • 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
Pro
#7
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.
Con
#8
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
    Pro
    #9
    "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.

    Con
    #10
    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