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

My opponent is very vehement in his defense and is sure in his beliefs, but unfortunately he misunderstands the things he has conceded and concedes things he has to hold on to for his debate to even stand. And I did not introduce any new points, as I simply extended my ones made previously which were not refuted or dismantled. ". .. which stated that property rights could be curtailed UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, and I did not limit those circumstances to an instance where an individual is depriving another of THEIR property rights. " My opponent previously conceded the use of argumentation ethics and has made no argument against it. Argumentation ethics claims that you are limited to those circumstances. My opponent is presenting an addendum to argumentation ethics that becomes a performative contradiction. (Ie. In arguing for the use of force, one is engaging in discourse not force. Therefore the argument becomes meaningless. ) "Anyhow, what are property rights? They are rights granted by law, and thus law may take them away if necessary. I agree that nobody has the right to take away another's property WITHOUT CONTRACT OR DISCOURSE, however, entering into the legal system (by being born) is a contract, and should be treated accordingly. " Firstly, property rights are not rights granted by law according to argumentation ethics (something that has been conceded by my opponent and left without refutation. ) Property rights are a priori assertions as per argumentation ethics via the non-aggression principle. So my opponent stating that the law may take them away if necessary is another statement that hinges upon his wrongful interpretation of the word, 'necessary. ' Furthermore my opponent concedes that, "Nobody has the right to take another's property without contract or discourse. .. " And I challenge my opponent's assertion that being born is a contract as I have already defined a contract as a spoken or written agreement between two or more parties. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) As newborn is incapable of speech or writing, he is also incapable of contract. So according to my opponent's own concession, "Nobody has the right to take another's property without contract or discourse. .. " As a newborn is incapable of both, his assertions of birth being a contract is false and my opponent has thus conceded the debate. ". .. does one establish that the rights of the people the serial killer is killing are on a higher level than those of the serial killer? " No. But the serial killer forgoes his right to property rights via argumentation ethics once he engages in force rather than discourse. "Doesn't a serial killer have rights? " Yes. Until he dismisses his own rights and another's by engaging in violence. "And if you kill the serial killer before he commits the crime, are you not compromising his rights? " 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. "Therefore, my argument against the non - aggression principle most assuredly stands. " In accordance to this baseless assertion I shall simply respond thus: "No, it does not. " "Now we delve into the realm of opinion over what is right or wrong - surely my opponent would not initiate force against government because he was asked to pay his taxes - this is the iniation of force by a party to deprive another party of property rights, but it would irrational of my opponent not to pay his taxes in that case. " Yes we do indeed delve into the realm of opinion: my opponent's opinion to what is rational and just. Unfortunately, my opponent doesn't back his claims up with evidence, nor does he refute my initial premise to grant himself any traction. He also assumes what I would do in a given hypothetical. 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. "Some things in life are necessary - but has a government dismissed it's right to existence because it initiated force? " Another strawman. The government has not dismissed it's right to existence. It has dismissed it's right to discourse if it engages in force rather than argument as per, the yet unchallenged, argumentation ethics. "To say that one dismisses one's own rights when one dismisses another's is an opinion backed neither by reason nor the law. " Another baseless assertion. Or, put simply: false. As shown in my previous arguments, one does dismiss his own rights when he engages in force rather than discourse. My opponent seems shaky on the details of Hermann-Hoppe's argumentation ethics, so I'll refer you to my very first paragraph of the rounds. It explains argumentation ethics. My opponent states, "Even the most radical libertarians would agree that some form of taxation is necessary. " FALSE. The most radical libertarians say the exact opposite. Some quasi -libertarians or generally-libertarians may concede a necessary tax. "(The)very system of property rights will collapse due to an end to law, order, and peace. " False. Argumentation ethics is an a priori concept. It is not contingent upon law, order or peace. "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 next paragraph uses a poor analogy (the sport's league) and tries to refute something that has already been established in the previous rounds (that abortion is also acceptable by U. S. law as per argumentation ethics and a right to one's body. 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. He has not and in the fourth round no new arguments are allowed beyond rebuttal and defense. ) 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. "I have already shown that my opponent's views of argumentation ethics must be false and limited to argumentation. " No, my opponent has not. He has simply disagreed with it based on opinion and undefined presupposition without actually refuting anything. 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. 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. 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.