There is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships

Thanks Pro. I. Preface Thanks for the debate Pro on this rather awkward and unusual topic. It's definitely a discussion I seldom have around the dinner table. I will mostly use this round to clear up misconceptions and summarise my arguments, since I think I have addressed most of Pro's points. To summarise my thoughts of the debate, it appears to me that Pro has set himself a very difficult to defend resolution, since to prove there is 'nothing wrong' with something appears to be hard for virtually anything, even actions that we consider moral, such as charity donations. A case could always be made there there are some negative knock-on effects, regardless of whether or not objectively it's overall a good thing or not. As for incest, the case is even more difficult to show as I have already demonstrated. As far as I am concerned, Pro simply has not met his burden of proof to demonstrate the likely truth if the resolution, and my arguments to show it false have generally been mishandled. So onto the summaries and last rebuttals.. II. Pornography ... Because all good rebuttals start with some good porn. Please note I never contested that incest sells, and I would imagine if incest porn markets were allowed to open in the western countries that have banned it, then I would not be the least be surprised if it sold here. The fact is, this is entirely besides the point, and it doesn't matter what the semantics of what the purpose of pornography is, whether it is for entertainment of arousal (I would argue that arousal is a subset of entertainment). The simple fact is, what people are entertained/aroused by simply does not demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with incest. Pro has asserted that pornography demonstrates a public desire for these types of relationships. Even if we assume this was true, I contest that what the public desires does not correlate with what is right or wrong. My previous examples stand, video games where you go around shooting everyone, or pillaging, stealing (Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty), or within the porn market itself with molestation (role-play) porn, bestiality, etc would by this exact same reasoning would show a public desire for these motions. It simply does not follow that what the public desire is right or wrong. Moreover I would contest that it even shows a desire, since I have already argued that arousal/entertainment could very conceivably be BECAUSE it's not something they physically desire in life, but only fulfils a certain area of satisfaction (sexual). Remember the burden of proof was in Pro to demonstrate this to be the case, and he simply has not done this. III. Liberties I am actually rather surprised that Pro has not defended this contention further. My original argument that societal liberties do not correlate with what is 'right' has not been contested by Pro. Instead he has only addressed the other examples. My counter arguments from a large part I of my rebuttals to liberties, I never did grant that people who love each other have the right to a relationship, and indeed this is a right which Pro did not substantiate. Please also note my argument : "Incest is wrong because society generally perceives it as wrong (as subjective and weak this argument might be)" was made assuming the same logic and reasoning Pro has put forth to tie the social perception and liberties to the resolution. I have shown that the logic is weak, and applying the same standard allows me to yield the pitiful argument I have just given with exactly the same level of justification and conviction that Pro has presented for his. IV. Institution of child abuse I really don't see how my argument is void. Allowing incest would mask cases of genuine familial child abuse, which is an additional negative over other relationships. Therefore it is quite black and white this qualifies as 'something wrong with incest'. Please note that Pro's reducio argument is actually a slippery slope fallacy,[1] with linked assumptions with increasing lack of soundness, which leaves to a cumulative overall highly unsound argument. Moreover my arguments are only red herrings if they are unrelated to the arguments or the resolution, but Pro has not shown this to be the case. V. Family Unit I pretty much conceded that the consequences may well be true (there are likely other external factors) going via this line of reasoning. And my reply was... 'so what?'. Just because it is true for other claims doesn't in any ya impact the fact it is also true for this claim. Pro seems to concede this argument given his stance, and therefore the resolution is completely negated. VI. Conclusion My position remains largely unchanged from the previous round. Pro has set himself an almost impossible resolution to defend. Moreover the arguments he has provided simply do not demonstrate the resolution to be true, or even support that it is true. Too many unsupported presuppositions lie within Pro's arguments to accept them as useful. I once again thank pro for this debate, I hold that the resolution is negated, vote Con! 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...