It Is Unjust For Unwed, Reluctant Fathers To Be Coerced To Pay Child Support

My opponent is also vehement in his defense of argumentation ethics and of his assertion that I have conceded the debate, but apparently misunderstood what I was conceding. I have certainly not conceded this debate nor have I heard answers that would seem to aptly defend against my various criticisms of my opponent's overall argument. I have previously refuted my opponent's baseless claims that the use of argumentation rather than force means that argumentation must therefore be used in all situations. This is not true in the real world and probably will never be - force must be used in some instances, just as argumentation must be used in others. It is not a "performative contradiction" as my opponent claims because we are, by arguing the topic as compared to using force to achieve higher ends, performing different acts! For instance, let's take the actions of Nelson Mandela's organization, the ANC. Does the fact that the ANC used violence preclude negotiations between the ANC and the apartheid regime? Does the fact that Syrian leader Bashar Al - Assad has massacred many of his people mean that negotiating with him to stop the violence is irrational? I fear that if we were to be guided by my opponent's unsupported views of argumentation ethics, our world would be in a very bad situation indeed! The next part of my opponent's argument relies upon the first, which has already been refuted. My opponent therefore has no refutation for the fact that property rights (including those to ourselves) are provided by government, in the constitution in America's case and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada's. My opponent has not attempted to dispute my own dictionary definition of contract nor my interpretation of his wikipedia clipping, so I'll let them stand. "This is once again a contradiction. One is not a serial killer until he has committed the crimes (Three kills to be exact). And yes you would be compromising his rights if you kill the "serial killer". But my opponent is setting up a hastily configured strawman. I am not saying firstly that the serial killer should be killed. I am saying that he is not a serial killer until he commits a crime. And I am saying that you should never deprive anyone of their rights until they do engage in force rather than discourse. " If one is to take my opponent's logic at it's most stringent, one is to believe that it would be immoral to stop a serial killer from committing his crimes! After all, you're initiating force before s/he is. Say you're in a house, the serial killer walks in, and you, knowing he is a serial killer, or at least someone who intends to kill you, shoot him in self defense. Does that make you the killer? As my opponent has already stated, the serial killer has not initiated force yet, but you have. Have you forgone your right to live because you defended yourself? I leave that to readers of this debate to decide. "And simply because taxes are taken, it doesn't mean that it is just. My opponent is assuming I'm some quasi-utilitarian, when in fact my arguments have mostly been based on libertarian ideology. The only difference between mine, and my opponents' arguments is that I back my assertions up." My opponent once more relies upon the non - aggression principle, which has already been proven to be fallacious, therefore I redirect readers of the debate to my criticisms of that principle. My opponent's next criticisms of my analogies are also backed by his assertions in terms of argumentation ethics, and once more I redirect readers to my criticisms of argumentation ethics and the non - aggression principle. My opponent continues to make assertions of his own opinions on libertarianism. Then we get here... "False. Argumentation ethics is an a priori concept. It is not contingent upon law, order or peace." However, to follow argumentation ethics to it's furthest, one must admit that it would affect law, order, and peace if one accepted it to be true, as I stated previously. " "Saying (men and women) are primarily unequal introduces bias..." Yes it does in the sense of rights. No it doesn't in simple biology. Women should not be forced to have a prostate exam just because men have to. Women should not have to pee standing up because men have to. And men should not be forced to suffer birth because women have to. It is a matter of genetics, not inequality. " My opponent's examples are irrelevant, because they are not things that both male and female are contributing to, they are solely restricted to gender - specific issues. If both male and a female contributed to a male's having to urinate standing up, then surely the female would have to take into account whatever she was doing that caused the male to have to urinate standing up just as he would have to. However, for the most part, my opponent's analogies deal with issues that do not have shared responsibility. "My opponent is wrong in believing, in his paragraph about contracts, that my definition suits his argument. There was an agreement for sex, yes. But there was no agreement to take care of a child or have a child." Since we're being stringent about concessions in this debate, I might point out that my opponent conceded that there WAS a contract involved in having sex. One of the products of that contact, as any grown adult should know, is the possibility of having a child. It is implicit, just as it is implicit if you buy cocaine from a drug cartel that you may use the cocaine, and if it wasn't, then drug cartel's should not be held accountable for selling cocaine in the first place! The same can be seen in other parts of law in terms of stolen items, which you must give up even if you only suspected that they were stolen. I repeat - we have responsibility for our actions/contracts. "In conclusion, I have made my argument supported by facts and logical conclusion stemming from an a priori of argumentation ethics that is proven to be universally true." Universally true? I certainly don't see argumentation ethics being applied in the real world, and if they were many problems would result, as I have shown. "My opponent has neither refuted, or questioned argumentation ethics, only misunderstood what they mean. I extend all my arguments that as-of-yet remain untainted." I fully understand argumentation ethics, and have criticized them accordingly. My opponent has stated his opinion multiple times, has told us what ought to be from what is (I refer you once again to Hume's Guillotine,) and he has asserted that because injustice exists, it is just." have not stated that because injustice exists, it is just, I have merely criticized my opponent's views on why he believes such things are unjust. In closing, I refer to what my opponent said earlier, which is this. "I have established my axiom a priori through AE, NAP, and Property Rights. If my opponent wants to refute any of them, he needed to bring a counter axiom to the table." If one contemplates this for a second, one realizes that this is a false assumption. All one has to do is to DISPROVE the points one's opponent has made, and although my opponent has made some excellent points, I believe that I have refuted them correctly. Since refutation is to prove the opposite of a point (i.e. if someone disproves that I am the king of Spain, they prove that I am NOT the king of Spain) I have correctly made counterpoints without counter - axioms. Therefore, I urge the audience to vote for con, as they must given con's refutations of pro's arguments, but more importantly I thank my worthy opponent for an interesting debate and the (very patient) audience for taking the time to read it! 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...