Migration is a Human Right
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Philosophy
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
- Required rating
- 1505
--Overview--
This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO above 1,505 to accept. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
Transnational migration ought to be a human right.
--Definitions--
Ought: expresses moral desirability
Human Right: a right afforded to all persons
Transnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Transnational migration ought to be a human right.
Ought: expresses moral desirabilityHuman Right: a right afforded to all personsTransnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders
- Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof, he cannot successfully negate unless he either (1) runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden.
- Con does not establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all. His points seem almost entirely off-topic.
- Con's argument is confusingly phrased and incredibly vague. It is not actually clear what he is arguing and what his advocacy is. This not only creates an unfair burden for me, in that I now have to try to make sense out of a word miasma, but it also means judges should default to my case as it is the only one with a definable position.
- The Is/Ought problem is not an obstacle for my case.
Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof,
runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
Con does not establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all. His points seem almost entirely off-topic.
Suppose, however, that my family prevents me from leaving. They catch me at the fence and say: "You were born here on this farm, and so you must remain here for life." There is obviously something morally wrong about this situation, namely, that I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander about the farm itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
Con's argument is confusingly phrased and incredibly vague. It is not actually clear what he is arguing and what his advocacy is. This not only creates an unfair burden for me, in that I now have to try to make sense out of a word miasma, but it also means judges should default to my case as it is the only one with a definable position.
The Is/Ought problem is not an obstacle for my case
Given that it will be necessary to clear up the confusion on this issue, "morality" is defined variously as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," "conformity to ideals of right human conduct," and "set of standards for good or bad behavior." [1-3] What is important in each of these definitions that morality is composed of a set of principles, ideals, or standards which inform the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the conduct being assessed.
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done. Take the case of utilitarianism, which argues that the moral precept is the maximization of happiness. This precept functions axiomatically. So, if as a utilitarian I say that "we ought to do X because it is going to save net lives," I do not run into the Is/Ought problem. If we are already defining the promotion of happiness as a moral precept axiomatically (and thus not derivately, as from a material fact), there is no dilemma. The axiomatic nature of the precept also prevents infinite regress. This is one example of how material facts are relevant to morality, and how this can be the case without running into the Is/Ought problem.Unless Con is planning to argue that values running the gamut from life to liberty to safety to community should not be included in such an axiomatic scheme, then it is hard to see how his argument here makes any sense. At the heart of it, our moral intuitions clearly guide us to the notion that these values should be included in such a scheme, which creates a strong presumption against any argument for their dis-inclusion which Con might attempt to make.Therefore, if we include as axiomatic those values and principles I name in my case, then we "ought" to act in ways which will uphold and respect them.
There must be an axiom involved for your argument and it will not be justified unless it's intrinsic...The problem is that you can't say that they ought to follow the standard even if they want to because you can't say that they ought to want to follow it or want the outcome or anything of the sort.
Thanks.
>But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.
I don’t necessarily mean you should’ve done that in your R1 case. I just mean, in your response, you should’ve perhaps advanced some combination of ethical theories. But really, you didn’t need to, you could’ve built on the intuition line, which I think is fairly strong if you go a bit further. You know more about ethics than I do, so I’m confident you’d have come up with something that would have won even if kritiks were allowed -- I’m just saying that it seems like you had the space, so it could be useful to bolster your responses more.
It didn’t receive a mention in the RFD since I didn’t view it as relevant to why you won the debate. I think the first response doesn’t really make sense -- your response to “that’s false” can’t be “oh, but that’s an axiom that doesn’t need justification.” I like the second response about moral intuition, would have liked to see more of that -- the reason it wasn’t debate-winning, though, is that it merely proved *possibility,* not *probability.* Con was pushing the burden of proof on you to prove your assumption of moral realism (which was clearly a kritik, so pointing that out was enough to win you the debate, but I think it’s good strategy to do “even if” responses in case there’s some judge who doesn’t buy that).
But I do take your point re: having a normative theory. I considered that option, and in hindsight it might have been a better choice.
You write: "justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it...runs into an infinite regress of justifications...because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion." I don't think Con clearly articulated that argument until R2, which is why I didn't offer any type of response sooner. Even in R2 it felt like more of an afterthought, albeit one that could have proven potentially lethal. The lack on emphasis from Con on the first argument you articulate is why I chose to emphasize instead my discussion of the second.
I did try to offer *something* of a response to this line of argumentation after I saw it had appeared, writing: "There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one." I take it this wasn't sufficient on that point?
Since you asked for feedback: The tl;dr of this is that, even though you’re right that Con basically ran a post-fiat kritik, you should take Con at their best case and do an “even if”-style engagement (e.g., “even if you don’t buy that this is a kritik or that this is irrelevant, here’s why Con’s argument is false”).
The best non-kritik version of Con’s argument would be to challenge you to justify a coherent ethical theory based on which your first and second arguments were true. I’d recommend doing that, perhaps in R2. For example, your first argument appears vaguely Rawlsian or libertarian, while your second argument seems vaguely communitarian. It’s possible to reconcile those two frameworks and offer a justification for both -- for example, you could say that moral uncertainty means we should weigh ethical considerations from a variety of normative ethical theories, including liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarian ethics. Or you could simply argue that moral intuition is valuable. You’re significantly more educated about these arguments than I am and I think they’d have bolstered your case.
I would also recommend taking Con at their best case and arguing against moral skepticism beyond just saying “we can accept moral axioms” (which is a bare assertion, though I suppose rule 6 allows you to make that bare assertion and let it be uncontested). The simplest response to skep arguments, as far as I know, is to simply say that insofar as moral realism is logically possible, it is less potentially costly to act as if moral realism were true. I believe you made a similar argument in your debate against 16kadams on animal rights, in which you said: “Presume Pro because it’s more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren’t.” You didn’t say that in the context of metaethics, but I would guess that it’s as compelling in that context as well.
I offer to provide you with more detailed feedback on your case and/or your handling of the is/ought issue if you wish, either here or in PMs if you would prefer.
Also, 100 comments.
Still would love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Sporkicide // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Pro
RFD: Con lost the moment he started behaving childishly and disrespecting his opponent.
Reason for mod action: First and foremost, this user is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. This user has done none of those things and so this vote is removed.
Furthermore, this vote fails to meet the COC standards. To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I love some more votes with feedback on my case or my handling of the Is/Ought debate...
The difference is that my pointing out a rules breach was never personal. All your insults were.
Let's just be clear on this. I am not the one who started with the accusations. If you don't want to receive, then you shouldn't give. It's that simple. I'll gladly end this conversation for the sake of your personal liberties, but just know that your hands are not clean in all of this.
It's not that I'm not trying to understand you, it's just that we flatly disagree. When it comes down to it, you think that your contingencies were productive to the debate and I don't. You think that debates are merely competitive and I don't. One could say that beating each other to death with toddler bodies is competitive and the context doesn't matter. But once you walk out of that sporting ring, you still have to go to sleep at night contending with the fact of what you did in the ring. If you think being in a debate ring suspends reality for you, I assure you that you are sadly mistaken.
I accuse you have being obtuse because I believe it. I am willing to concede things that I think are true even in a debate where it would lose me the debate. Give me one good reason why I should believe anything that you say when you are the type of person to disagree with a person's entire debate arguments wholesale. If you were arguing honestly, then there would have been at least a few points that I made that you could have agreed with, but it's just a game to you. You've admitted as much.
I'm going to throw you a bone though, because I sincerely like to see people improve even when they seem hopeless. If you want an example of what an objective debater looks like. Go look at Dustandashes. You could learn a thing or two from him. I know I have.
>> The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
Because anyone who took my debates seriously on that level would be gravely mistaken, and because I doubt my debates are silver-tongued enough to be the decisive force in how they come down on a particular issue. Most of the time, people understand that debates are just all in good fun, and nothing more.
I understand that, but it's not the same. I can enter a debate as an industrialist and do it in a way that is still in line with my beliefs. Maybe I advocate for soft industrialism. Now if you want to just full on play devil's advocate, then that's your prerogative obviously. On a practical level, I would suggest you make it clear that you're playing devil's advocate, but that's just my opinion.
The objective truth, however, is that whether or not you're allowed to do it in a debate does not change the fact that you're roleplaying might cause someone to hurt the trees that you love. How can that not bother you?
If someone because a theist because I lied, I would hold myself morally responsible for that. Now they might because a theist because of my atheism. But at least in that case I took every action possible to try and make that not happen and I certainly didn't roll the dice on it like you are.
So, I think I've been fairly conciliatory and patient in my responses to you here in the comments, because I understand you are upset or frustrated. Please understand that this was not the way either of us wanted the debate to turn out.
However, it seems that you are largely unwilling to try to understand where I am coming from, despite my efforts to explain my position. I am also not keen on having prolonged conversations in which people insinuate falsely that I am a liar or a jerk or lack integrity. Given that I have thoroughly explained my stance and addressed yours, I see no further need to carry on with this conversation. I feel as if I have met my obligation to try to assuage your concerns and then some, so I am done with this ancillary debate.
I will allow my comments to speak for themselves, and I continue to hope to get some good feedback from voters moving forward.
I think you are missing an important difference between "debate" broadly and "competitive debate." This is competitive debate--it is literally about scoring points.
I genuinely believe that we have a moral obligation to protect our forests, and I act on that obligation to the extent I am able to in real life. But, when I enter a space like debate, where it is generally understood that we do not have to argue for our own beliefs, then I am not being dishonest in taking up the position of the industrialist. I am not being dishonest precisely because I am not advocating that people *actually* take up that position, but rather I am trying to outdo my opponent within the bubble of the debate. It's roleplaying. Actors on stage are not being dishonest when they portray people who are not them; they are roleplaying in a context where it is understood that roleplay is going on.
I don't know what a background of competitive debate would look like exactly, so I can't say for sure. But I would assume that I do not. Does this make me wrong? I might not have the stomach for dishonestly spitting out rhetoric, but I have a long history of being honest and that's all I care about. I think honesty would probably be my one and only true axiom, since I generally don't accept axioms. Is it a bias on my part? Maybe... Probably. But there's not much I can do about that since I wholeheartedly believe that honesty is important.
If I have to lie to win a debate, then in my mind, I didn't win that debate.
To me, winning a debate is arguing for that which you believe and being good enough at it to convince other people. If I can only convince people of things by lying, then I'm nothing more than a grifter. I would consider that immoral because one of my lies might spread a false belief and that is unacceptable to me.
Here's the way I see it. People believe things for reasons. If they believe it wholeheartedly, especially if it's related to morals. Then they will act according to those beliefs.
If I'm against something because I think it's morally wrong and then I go and play devil's advocate in a debate without any regard for my true position, then I'm being dishonest. It's that simple for me. Because to advocate for something that you think morally wrong is a life issue. Is it a debate issue? No, but who cares about debating if there's no knowledge seeking behind it. If I wanted to just argue and score points, I would just go to youtube or reddit and ream people there.
First, I am not advocating for it outside the context of the debate. Debate is a bubble. Much like Vegas, what happens there stays there, and should not be interpreted as real world advocacy. In debates, it is generally understood that debaters put forward arguments which may not reflect their own views, and therefore there is no presumption that these views reflect debaters beliefs. Ergo, there's no dishonesty. It's rather naive to think otherwise. Second, I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs, so there was no dishonesty on that level either.
You obviously do not come from a background of competitive debate, which is fine. But it does mean we're going to see things differently. That we don't see eye-to-eye does not make either one of us dishonest. It just means we have different paradigms for conceptualizing the activity, what is or is not appropriate in the activity, and so on.
That's nonsense. If you're advocating for something that you don't believe in, then you're not being honest. If you want to lie to yourself and say it is honest, then be my guest. But just know that you're deluding yourself.
Okay, fairness is an adjective that I'm applying to the word liberty. I'm not saying they're the exact same thing. I'm saying that the liberty has to be fair. My liberty ends where yours begins. However, in the case of a debate, there is no way for my liberty of making an argument to trump yours, so we'd both and full liberty and it would be fair because we both have it. When you make a contingency that is tailor made for your argument, that is neither fair nor liberal.
Thanks for the vote. I still don't think I challenged any rules of the debate. That was just a strawman that bsh1 made of me. I pretty much knew I was going to lose the debate going in. I'll tell you what I've told you in the past. If you assume that my goal was to win the debate, then yes I lost. But that is rarely my goal except maybe in rap battles or debates that I don't care about personally.
But in this case, I take logic seriously as I think the lack of it causes a lot of problems in society and my real goal is to get people to think about their axioms. It always has been. It's the reason I started debating in the first place.
If I have to lose 1,000 debates and become a joke to the community, then so be it. None of that matters to me. If I can teach even one person to justify their own claims then I've done my job (I think I'm at about 3 people now, but who knows if any of that stuck with them. [fyi none of those people are on this website, at least I think they're not])
Full liberty is not fairness either, it's anarchy. Fairness implies rules, which in turn implies restrictions on liberty.
Besides, a debate requiring you to argue something which you do not personally believe is hardly revolutionary. *Most* competitive debating require debaters to argue things they don't believe. I did not argue my own beliefs in this debate, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest, because I never purported to represent my arguments as my beliefs.
I didn't say it was. I said it was fairness. My point is that if I have to lie about my position to win a debate, then the debate is not fair. If I honestly believe my argument to be true, then I should be able to present it the way that I believe it. If I am wrong, then it's for the voters to decide. Not my opponent.