Rawls veil of ignorance achieves justice better than Nozick.

= Road Map = 4. Road Map - duh 5. Framework - I will extend my framework, and show it preempts Con arguments. 6. Rebuttal - I will respond to Con's refutations in a line-by-line rebuttal 7. Highlights - I will highlight the important issues which may have been lost in the line-by-line 8. Underview - I will extend appropriately. I will wrap up unfinished Business. = 5. Framework = Silence is compliance. The fact that my opponent chose not to address my framework in his previous round means that he accepts it as a standard by which to weight and direct this round. Obs 1: Philosophy- When one debates philosophy, one must do so in an ideological vacuum. What this means is that we cannot make any assumptions about the validity of a philosophical construct prior to the discussion and clash which support or deny that construct. In the case of this debate, that construct is the veil of ignorance; unless a logical argument shows that it is not possible to maintain the veil of ignorance, then you must accept it as a philosophically sound construct. Obs 2: Presumption of Belief- This is very important to maintain in his debate, primarily due to the nature of my opponent's refutation in contention 1. You must presume the stance of the contender to be true and acceptable unless the instigator can show a logical argument which proves their stance to be true. My opponent fails to do this concerning the objective decision making, but instead defaults to a semantic argument in a rebuttal speech. I will cover his more in dept in just a moment, but this semantic argument is a big voting issue for the Pro. = 6. Rebuttal = Contention 1- a. Here my opponent doesn't make a logical argument to show why objectivity cannot exist, he simply provides a new definition in a rebuttal speech and offers some conjecture concerning said definition. Further this argument is nothing more than a pathos appeal gone wrong as he utilizes the scenario of a rape victim and concludes that objective decision making is impossible here. Now here's why that's bad, when you make an argument based off of a definition, then it becomes a truistic statement and doesn't leave room for clash to happen. Reject this outright. b. I also two responses. First, my opponent again responds with a definition as a rebuttal so make a direct extension from 1a here. Second, it crucial that every argument have a single claim, with strong warrant(s) and a single impact. My opponent does not does not do that here, he strings together three different claims and calls it a legitimate argument. Further when I challenge him on this he just adds some definitions and calls the problem fixed. This is not appropriate rebuttal, as it is truistic and semantic. I urge you to reject these tactics outright as they kill debate. Further my opponent's excuse that he made this debate on a cell phone is a pitiful one at best. He could have waited until he was around a computer to make his arguments, the fact that he didn't is his own fault. c. My opponent groups this with Contention 2, but going to go ahead and refute here and extend as is appropriate. The rules of argumentation dictate that the instigator and the contender have certain burdens they must fulfill so that a debate may flow smoothly and cohesively. For my opponent, he holds the burden of proof in this debate which must exist beyond simply making claims and leaving the voters to do as they wish. He must have a solid claim, warrant and impact for an argument to exist. As he does not have these things, he doesn't have an argument I urge you voters to hold him accountable for this mistake through the vehicle of your vote. Further he has still failed to provide a warrant to validify his arguments. Instead he simply present new definitions to preempt my argument which end up being semantic and making his arguments out to be nothing more than truistic statements. My opponent has failed to respond to my initial refutations by providing warranted statements and any attempt to do so at this point will be an ad-hoc rescue. Contention 2- a. Again my opponent is simply arguing semantics. I don't burden to define, that's the responsibility of the instigator int he constructive. If he fails to do that then the debate doesn't exist withing a single set of definitions. What that means is that when my opponent decides in rebuttal that he should probably offer some definitions, he's changing the nature of his arguments in a rebuttal. That is an ad-hoc rescue and is grounds for a full forfeiture of all seven points in the debate. I don't know clear I can make this guys, a definition does not make a suitable warrant. You must back an argument with logical structures which show that the premise you're arguing for is true and valid. Simply saying 'here what this dictionary says' does not do that. b. This response is a cop-out. Both of these arguments are dealing with the same thing (lack of objective decision making) and rely on another in his constructive. My opponent isn't going to be able to salvage this argument in this debate, as it would require him to completely retool the argument with a different claim and a different warrant. This is exactly what I warn against in my underview as being an ad-hoc resuce argument, and you need to reject so that my opponent doesn't get an unfair edge. c. How is an employer going to know an applicant's sexual preference base on the business experiences they've recorded on an application? My opponent doesn't address the fact that given only an applicant's qualifications and business experience that his o her choice would be made objectively based on their qualifications. he's changing my argument and committing a strawman fallacy by assuming that the employer is prejudiced against gays. The fact that subjectivity can exist does not mean that objectivity cannot exist. People can look past their own biases and opinions and make decisions based on objective evidence. The voters on this debate, for example, may feel strongly one way or the other, but they're still going to vote based on the content of this round. Not on their own opinions. = 7. Highlights = a. Veil of Ignorance- My opponent doesn't touch on this at all in his first contention (which was where he first talked about it originally), and barely touches on it in his rebuttal. He has had plenty of character space throughout this debate to discuss this issue. He has defaulted to cheap semantic arguments instead of making logically sounds structure to arguing the impossibility of the veil of ignorance. opponent has cherry picked issue in this debate that he's wanted to respond to and has utterly failed to make an argument as to why the veil of ignorance is not possible. b. Nozick- This is a big issue guys. Honestly it's enough to vote Pro on right now. My opponent hasn't even bother to discuss the viability of Nozick's entitlement theory in this debate. Even if won everything on the flow you would still vote Pro because Con has failed to show that Nozick upholds justice better. Honestly due to this lack the theories end up being balanced no matter what. Further to begin arguing Nozick in the final round would be a new argument and not viable for my opponent. = 8. Underview = a. This is moot as my opponent meets this framework. b. I point out several ad hoc rescues in my opponent's rebuttals, he never responds the fact the making this fallacy is an automatic forfieture, so he mus accept this framework. Vote Pro on this alone. Also, he really can't save his second contention as I maintain my prior argument that it's circular with his first.