Tuvix Was Murdered

As this is the final round, I will offer only rebuttals and summaries, with all arguments based on previously referenced sources or contentions. ::Opening Statement:: Pro has admittedly presented us with inconsistent theories. Some of his arguments only apply if Tuvok and Neelix were killed in the accident, while others hinge on them remaining somehow alive within Tuvix. I'm sure my opponent would love to have his moral cake and eat it, too, but his latter claim simply doesn't hold water. Regardless of how we define it, Tuvok and Neelix were not "alive" and well within Tuvix. The two lost their bodies and occupied no independent physical space. They lost all social and familial ties, as evidenced by Kes' rejection of Tuvix and his need to form new relationships with the crew. As for their mental states, the two were opposites in almost every way [1, see: Neelix]. Pro himself argued that Tuvok and Neelix had different mentalities, with the former relying solely on logic [1] and the latter using emotion [2]. The combination of these incompatible mindsets fundamentally altered them, discarding the unique selves of Tuvok and Neelix in the process. Tuvix's behavior supports this theory. If the minds of the Tuvok and Neelix were truly available to him, he would have agreed to a temporary separation to demonstrate their consent to the crew. Even if he feared this brief "suicide," it was his last recourse once Captain Janeway ordered the separation. The preponderance of evidence suggests Tuvix did not act as a peaceful dwelling for Tuvok and Neelix, but rather that every moment of his existence essentially destroyed them. Pro's empty claims of Tuvix's innocence no longer stand, and thus separating him to save two true innocents was not immoral. ::Rebuttals:: 1. Pro argued that a right to life necessarily assumes an opportunity to survive. Thus, Tuvok and Neelix had a reasonable expectation of continued existence, which, barring their permission, must be defended. The ship's captain and Neelix's mate were morally justified in saving them, especially in the face of one who would actively keep their lives from them. Now, my opponent maintains that Tuvix's rights held priority over theirs. However, why would this be? Pro concedes that Tuvix had a vested interest in the deaths of the two men and actively denied them their right to survive. As all three were soldiers on a military ship, the decision rightfully fell to their commanding officer. In this case, her ruling involved preserving the maximum number of lives, returning ill-gotten property, and ensuring the well-being of the hundreds on board. As for that decision's repercussions on Tuvix, Pro only states that the price was too high. Of course, given that he had no claim to his existence in the first place, this defense is irrelevant. His atoms, his cells, his very genetic make-up. .. everything Tuvix was belonged to someone else. Tuvok and Neelix did not willingly donate part of themselves to another or create a cell which eventually grew into its own, as with a child. Their entire beings were snatched away without reason or consent, leaving them helpless and wanting. Morality does not support Pro's theory of genetic finders-keepers, and Tuvix was obligated to return what he had wrongfully obtained. 2. Pro agrees that merging Tuvok and Neelix would require other officers to be retrained and reassigned to compensate. Not only would this further strain an already small crew, it would not eliminate the issue of overburdening a single officer. Neelix was the only man on board who knew where they were and what species they would encounter [2, see: "Caretaker"], meaning Tuvix would have to maintain navigator and ambassador duties on top of those of Tuvok. Pro has failed to demonstrate the moral superiority of endangering the crew in this way, despite having 3 rounds to do so. 3. Considering the issue of morality hinges most on this particular argument, I am surprised by Pro's lack of a defense. Once again, he relies on the fact that Tuvix was alive and the others were not to establish immorality. However, I could not claim moral superiority over those I had murdered just because I was still alive and they were not. Similarly, Tuvix must be innocent of any wrongdoing in the deaths of Tuvok and Neelix before his existence alone grants him the moral high ground. In this case, he certainly was not. If one accidentally acquires stolen property but refuses to return it, are they innocent? Should the original owners be expected to forfeit what's theirs because its possessor has use for it? The fact that Tuvix was created with the property in question does not clear him of his responsibility to make amends. After all, Tuvok and Neelix were already born of the same substance and thus held a rightful claim over it. Tuvix, who was harboring this life-force against the wills of the crewmen and those who spoke for them, did not. 4. Pro has conceded that the doctor does not speak for the Federation. He also dropped my previous point that the captain was not legally reprimanded for separating Tuvix. These two concessions eliminate Pro's argument on illegality. ::Conclusion:: Pro's task in this debate was to show that, within the context of the story, Tuvix's end was either illegal or immoral. Having abandoned his arguments about the law, Pro's entire case rested on Tuvix's innocence (as the death of an innocent would be immoral). Fortunately, this claim was always an empty one. The only innocents in this scenario were Tuvok, Neelix, and the rest of the crew. As Tuvix's actions served only to destroy or endanger them, his alleged innocence is defeated and the resolution has been negated. Thanks for reading. It's been a lot of fun! ~ Maikuru (Con) ::References:: 1. . http://memory-alpha.org... 2. . http://memory-alpha.org...