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
- 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
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.
Pro did fail all debate to prove that his agreement 'as long as' is present is linked to the right-status of the type of killing in question.
On the other hand, Con never once all debate explored even one example of where the killing of the child is either:
right where Pro disagrees.
or
wrong where Pro agrees.
I declare this a genuinely tied debate because Con did successfully tether Pro to the BoP that Pro never upheld but Pro also lacked any example where Pro would need to defend, meaning Con totally lacked any offense here to edge the win.
The resolution is a contingent statement: Pro's agreement is required in order to demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with a parent killing their child. As such, it was Pro's burden to demonstrate that his agreement with incidents where this occurs is sufficient to demonstrate that the act was not morally wrong. Instead of doing so, Pro argues that there are cases where parents killing their child have done nothing wrong that are obvious cases of self-defense under the law. As Con argues, it's not Pro's agreement that demonstrates a lack of wrongness in these cases, but rather a legal basis for allowing it and a societal view about when these incidences can be considered moral. Pro's response to Con repeatedly pointing this out is to say in R4 that:
"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 doesn't agree with a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. As written, the wrongness is contingent on Pro's agreement. In other words, that green light cannot just indicate that things are working properly - it has to be sufficient in and of itself to demonstrate that things are working properly, regardless of other parts of the machine. Pro may have wanted to have a different debate, but he wrote the resolution and it disagrees with his argument. As such, I vote Con.
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.