It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified.

"The pro has argued. " Definitions: arguable = that which can be plausibly or convincingly argued (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Note that the words "plausibly" and "convincingly" suggest that only statements that are somewhat controversial (meaning a significant amount of people disagree with) are arguable. Statements accepted by most of society are not considered arguable, even if they are later proven false. For example, it used to be undisputed/unarguable that the Sun revolved around the Earth (and not the other way around). immoral = contrary to established moral principles; transgressing accepted moral rules (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Note that the words "established" and "accepted" suggest that if most people believe that it is immoral to use babies for slave labor, then it is immoral to use babies for slave labor, regardless of what a small dissenting minority thinks. Morality may change depending upon the time; when asking if something is immoral (without explicitly specifying a time period), however, the current time period is implicitly assumed. Point 4a still stands: Right now, using babies for slave labor is not morally justified (. http://www.antislavery.org...; see The Conventions of the International Labour Organization, 1926 and 1956 Slavery Conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) Also, "Premise X [that] arguing is not necessarily convincing" is irrelevant. For Pro to win the debate, Pro must not only argue but also convince voters of the resolution. In this specific debate, the only way for Pro to win is by convincing voters that "It is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. "Premise 2: "arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not an act in regards to morality, but an act in regards to truth" is incorrect. Arguing it is moral to use babies for slave labor is an act in regards to truth; however, it is also an act in regards to morality. In other words, deceiving people into committing immoral, destructive acts is immoral. This is point 4e. For example, it is immoral to give people a bottle containing poison and convince them to drink it by claiming that there is only water inside. Similarly, it is immoral to convince moral people that they can use babies for slave labor and remain moral, when society will consider them as immoral if they do use babies for slave labor. Premise 3: "inherently, just because it can be consider morally wrong to hold the position that using babies in slave labor is morally justified, does not mean the counterpart arguing to argue such things is justifiable under a moral code, is not by necessity an immoral conjunction. This is a compositional fallacy. " This is not the compositional fallacy - I have logically shown how it is immoral in point 4. Unless Pro can dispute a specific subpoint, Con wins this point. Premise 6: "The argument that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified, has not been proven as false by con. " Pro has ignored point 4. Thus Con's argument remains intact. Point 4 (which was made in the last round) is as follows: 4. "Con only has to show it is not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. " a. Using babies for slave labor is not morally justified (. http://www.antislavery.org......; see The Conventions of the International Labour Organization, 1926 and 1956 Slavery Conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) b. Moral people commit morally justified acts. c. Thus, convincing moral people that immoral acts are morally justified can cause them to commit these immoral acts. d. Encouraging or tricking moral people into committing immoral acts is not morally justified. e. Therefore convincing moral people that immoral acts can be morally justified is not morally justified. f. To argue that an immoral act is morally justified, one must dispute that the immoral act is necessarily immoral. g. Claiming that an immoral act can be morally justified, is not morally justified (this follows from (e)). h. Therefore, arguing that an immoral act is morally justified in not morally justified. i. Therefore, arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is not morally justified. j. Statements that are known to be either true or false are not arguable by definition (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com......). k. Therefore, it not arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. To summarize, Pro has not shown "it is arguable that arguing "it is moral to use babies for slave labor" is morally justified. " Also, Pro must respond to point 4, otherwise voters cannot in good conscience use their vote to express approval of child slavery.