Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted

Defence: Is/Ought Gap: - Pro has failed to establish even one instance of this alleged committed fallacy! II. Incestuous relationships should not be permitted in a democracy: 1. - Pro, again, conveniently ignores the most fundamental aspect of Democracy, that is: “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority” [1]. Besides, elected officials are designed to represent best the demographics of the people. - Pro here did not contest the value of Democracy, he merely twisted its signification to fit the narrative he wished to argue for, which immediately invalidates his argument. Thus, my argument stands. - Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the Majority. The fact that some minorities enjoy specific rights in various democracies is simply due to the fact that majorities in these places allow it, referred to in this case as Supermajority [3]. Liberty is valued by legislators only because the Majority cherish it. Had the majority of people valued it less than other values for instance (such as the case of Iran [2]), it wouldn’t be as important. Pro, however, seems to take this ‘value’ for granted & assume its universality & proceed to argue without justifying this first very important premise for his entire case. - Another extension to this argument is for example Homosexuality vs. Polygamy in the West, the former being permitted while the latter isn’t! This of course is due to the sympathising of the majority with one practice as opposed to the other. 2. - This simply stems from the previous premise, which entails that, if we value Democracy, which we do (for Pro has not contested this), then we should value the wishes of the Majority of the people, who most likely, due to social & religious reasons, would reject incestuous relationships. - Pro attempted to dismiss this contention by asserting that it’s an is/ought fallacy without explaining why that is the case, & conveniently so. 3. - Pro has obviously missed the point here entirely. That is A. Pro assumes Liberty as a universal value & proceed form there to establish his case. 2. Democracy, as the rule of the majority, decides the value of Liberty & restricts its application. => Therefore, we can’t possibly argue from Liberty without first considering the role of the Majority. 3. Non-Democracy, coincidently, does not acknowledge the value of Liberty (the specific one advocated by Pro), for the simple fact that they are both intertwined to the western rule. => Therefore, we can not possibly argue from Liberty if there was no acknowledged role of the Majority. - In all cases, Liberty is not as universal a value as Pro led us to believe, it’s a value contingent to the social & religious norms of the Majority, or quite frankly, also, the whims of the Majority (or supermajority [3]). => Therefore, Pro’s assumption is not just questionable but also invalid. Pro had to prove either of the following: i. Democracy is valueless, which he didn’t do, rather he conceded its value. ii. The Majority of people will likely support Incestuous Marriage, which he didn’t argue for! III. Incestuous relationships should be restricted by social/religious norms 1. - Pro here ‘argues’, or rather assumes that norms follow our values, not the other way around! Which is false (for instance, the values of muslim nations stem from their religious norms), & also hardly related to the argument on wether social & religious norms should be taken into account in legislation or not! - The argument here is that if we are willing to discard the social & religious norms of a nation based on the fact that they are arbitrary compared to another’s, thus willing to discard all laws that are equally arbitrary, then we are bound to embrace the whole spectrum of these norms (i.e. dropping all related laws), no matter how unpleasant they are. 2. - This evidently follows from (1). To elaborate, here is an example: i. The laws concerning Nubility (marital age) are arbitrary. This, for nubility varies greatly from nation to nation & from culture to culture, & even within the same nation. In France for instance, in a span of 200 years only, nubility ranged from 12yo to 18yo, the latter being just recently upgraded from 15yo in 2006 to 18yo, & in India, in a span of less than 70 years, the marital age ranged from 10yo to 18yo [4]. ii. If these laws are arbitrary, then they should be discarded. iii. If these laws are discarded, then we have no problem with any combination of other laws concerning Nubility. In this case, we might as well legalise marriage of 10yos, well, since we supposedly don’t care about social & religious norms. - Pro contests this by arguing that Norms should be ignored for the purposes of law in society! Pro seems to want to apply this approach only when it suits him, while ignoring the unpleasant consequences it entails. 3. - Pro attempts to dismiss this contention by asserting that it is a slippery slope fallacy, which it factually isn’t, as shown earlier. Pro, by asserting that “all laws that are inherently arbitrary in any nation should be discarded”, does not get to pick at whim which of these laws should be an exception. For instance: laws concerning Nubility are inherently arbitrary, thus, should be discarded. - Pro also asserts that nubility (thus pedophilia), bestiality and human sacrifice. . . harm Liberty, of course, without justifying why that is! This is a crucial point Pro had to refute, he had to conclusively establish why these practices defeat Liberty, otherwise there is no reason for us whatsoever to consider any difference between Incestuous Marriage & these “unpleasant” practices, for the basis of argument in both cases is Liberty & the Harm Principal, & so long as these practices are victimless (noone other than the parties involved are harmed), which they are, then they all should be permitted. Instead, Pro resorted to bare assertion, knowing he had the BOP to establish this point to save his case. - An example of these practices is bestiality in Columbia, which is not just legal, but also a norm & evidently a victimless practice[5]. Thus, according to Pro’s reasoning, if we discard the social norms & drop arbitrary laws, then we ought to legalise bestiality, for there is no reason not to, as there is no reason not to legalise incestuous marriage. 4. - Pro here again does not tell us why these practices are any different than incestuous marriage, asserting “slippery slope” without any justification whatsoever does not count as an argument! If we follow Pro’s reasoning, then we must value Liberty under the Harm Principal, & according to Pro, we must thus ignore all norms, disregard all arbitrary laws, & legalise all victimless crimes. If we do this, then we are certainly bound to disregard the laws concerning marital age, thus ultimately legalising pedophilia, &, similarly, bestiality, human self-sacrifice, drug use . . . Rebuttals: C1. Benefits & Impact: 1. Pro’s argument here is still a fallacy of affirming the consequent, here: i. Every legal-marriage ought to have benefits. ii. Incestuous marriage is legal. c. Therefore, incestuous marriage ought to have benefits. => Premise (ii) is ignored by Con, & the conclusion (incestuous marriage is legal) is assumed before demonstrating it. 2. Pro here forgot he had the BOP, not me, to establish WHY the health benefits of normal marriage would extend to incestuous marriage!!! Pro is obviously commenting a hasty generalisation fallacy here, in which he switched the BOP & expect me to prove the opposite, which I am absolutely not required to do, especially since I provided good reasons why these health benefits are unlikely to extend. 3. Pro fails again to provide any sources supporting that incest, other than accidental, does happen. Plus, this is an is/ought fallacy, for if something exists, it doesn’t imply that it should. C2. No harm principal (HP) - Pro’s argument here can be summarised as follow: 1. Incestuous marriage is not harmful, despite the fact that incestuous childbirth is. 2. Prohibiting incest based on harmful childbirth leads to serious repercussions. 3. This prohibition does not apply to all forms of incest. 4. The HP is sufficient to legalising something. 1. => The HP also incorporates the potential consequences not just direct ones [6]. In this case, it is highly likely that a married incestuous couple will have children (94% of married women in the US have children by the age of 44 [7]), & thus, it is highly likely that we would have to face a potential harm to children, death or disabilities. 2. => In other than incestuous marriages, there is no potential harm to children, for it is highly unlikely that a normal couple would have transmitted genetic diseases, as opposed to an incestuous couple. 3. => Pro is not arguing for a specific form of incest, which are in fact legal in some places as opposed to others. He can either argue for incest in all its forms, or concede, which apparently he did here. 4. => Pro argued that the HP is sufficient for prohibiting something & necessary for not prohibiting it, but he does not show in any way why is it sufficient in not prohibiting something. This is clearly a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Conclusion: - Pro failed throughout the debate to establish: 1. Why is Liberty a universal value. 2. Why is HP sufficient for not prohibiting incest, how is it reciprocally sufficient for prohibiting other victimless practices (pedophilia, bestiality. . ). 3. Why should arbitrary laws concerning incest should be discarded, while others shouldn’t. 4. Why should Homosexuality be permitted to begin with! => Thus, fails to establish his case, & fails to refute mine, keeping in mind he had the BOP. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl... [5] http://goo.gl... [6] http://goo.gl... [7] http://goo.gl...