It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

"MTGandP--- in your first 5 paragraphs in Round 3, you avoided my points in Round 2, and refuted my points in Round 1. If you feel as though, you want to let my points from Round 2 stand, that is fine with me." Let's look at what I did in round 3. -I quoted and rebutted many of my opponent's round 2 arguments. -I reiterated arguments I made in round 2 that my opponent did not properly rebut. -I rebutted my opponent's new contentions. I wouldn't call that avoidance. "It still creates a master race (gender)." No it doesn't. I have already refuted this. There is no more I can say. "I'll leave the whole debate about men vs. women and overpopulation vs. underpopulation where they are right now." Fair enough. I will also drop that issue. However, I would like to point out that it would be dishonest and unfair of my opponent to provide new arguments about overpopulation vs. underpopulation in round 4, as I will have no opportunity to respond. "[My contentions 3 and 4] don't have to be supported. We are debating morality. These contentions stand." They don't have to be supported by evidence, but they should at least be supported by logic. My opponent has provided no logic; he has only made outlandish claims without any support for them. I could just as easily claim "When parents are allowed to choose the sex of their child, the world becomes a magical utopia where everything is perfect." His third and fourth contentions are to be ignored. If they are not accepted as true, then my sentence about magical utopias must also be accepted as true. "So you concede it is unfair to put an unfair burden on children. And these burdens would become stronger with sex selection." The first sentence is correct by definition. The second sentence is not only unsupported, but I refuted it: "A father is just as likely to demand that his son become a star quarterback if he gets the son by chance. If his child turned out female, there would be different expectations (such as becoming star cheerleader)." My opponent claims that the slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy. However, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) ALL explain why it is fallacious and therefore invalid. My opponent claims that it is valid, despite the fact that all of his sources explain its invalidity. He has therefore refuted himself. Any reader who wants to know more about the slippery slope fallacy should read one of the numerous sources posted by one of us (I recommend [1] or [2]), and will then see why my opponent's sixth contention does not stand. However, if my opponent insists, I will give an explanation. From [3]: The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form: Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. "[W]e should not force children to be a gender they did not choose." Then we should not have children at all. When a child's gender is randomly selected by nature, it is no more the child's choice than when a parent chooses it. The child loses no freedoms whatsoever by having a parent choose his/her gender as opposed to the gender being selected randomly. "So what? There is no evidence that Megan Fox is hot. But people believe it anyway. Just because there is no concrete evidence, does not mean it is not true." Let's look at what my opponent just said here. He said that sometimes people believe things without evidence. Therefore, we should believe his claim that "choosing a child's gender inhibits the beauty of childbirth" without any evidence. My opponent actually stated that we should accept his claim without any evidence whatsoever. Look at the sheer ridiculousness of that claim. And I'm not just talking about empirical evidence. He also has not provided any logical foundations to his argument; in essence, you as the reader have absolutely no reason to believe that it's true. ======== My opponent's contentions have been refuted. His attempts to refute my own arguments have been adequately halted, and my arguments stand. The choice is clear. Vote Pro! [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.nizkor.org...