There is no such thing as "inherent value"

I appologize for the forfeit last round. I underestimated the time I had left to complete it, and was unable to meet the time limit. Feel free to deduct conduct, but I'm going to get back into things. "Next, just because someone claims something exists, that does not mean that if someone else claims it doesn't, all the burden-of-proof falls upon the second person" No, but as you are the one making a claim, inherent value does not exist, you must prove that what you are saying is true. That's, like, the basic definition of a burden of proof. So you still have BOP. Also, I don't see the point of you arguing you don't when you're not trying to shift BOP onto anyone else. Is there a point to this?" And, as I showed in my first argument, it is by the definitions of "inherent" and "value" that they cannot connect with logical consistency, at least when "value" is defined in terms of "desirability"." And, as you so amazingly dropped the point of my arguments were I refute this, I argued that a) Inherent value is one concept, not two words, and thus should not be defined as two words and b) your definition of value is inconsistant with the way inherent value really works, and that definition four applies better. This gets us out of desirability, but I'll get to that later. "Please note: I started off this Debate talking about the abortion issue _specifically_ because I want to talk about a particular meaning of the phrase "inherent value"." Sure, but that doesn't mean you have to limit the entire debate to talking about abortion-related arguments, as that insanely restricts the ground of arguments I can make. Moreover, it would also invalidate half of your examples about gold and molecules and birds, so I don't see how you're really fitting in with your own argument. "For example, a "ground-state" protium-hydrogen nucleus has an inherent value of mass-magnitude which is always a specific fraction of the mass-magnitude of a ground-state deuterium-hydrogen nucleus." The awkward thing is this isn't an inherent value of protium-hydrogen. It's a measurement. Inherent value is, as I gave an example, a different concept entirely. Example would be the value of wealth in gold (gold has always stood for wealth throughout history, and still does, as it is it's inherent value). "Nevertheless, my refutation of the actual existence of that type of "inherent value", _however_ it is applied, still holds." No it doesn't. " Desire cannot exist without something that is doing the desiring, and non-living things never do any desiring." This assumes two things:1) That desirability plays into this debate (which it doesn't in multiple places)2) That without desire, inherent value suddenly drops off the face of the earth. This is false, as inherent value exist, regardless of whether or not we notice this. I believe that this is even something you said ("Since the concept of "inherent" requires a property to exist independently of whether or not it is noticed"). I may not desire gold, but I still recognize it's inherent value exists. Thus, this is false as well. "As a specific example, look again at what Con wrote: "... an inherent value of gold is it's representation of wealth." But since when are non-living things interested in "wealth"?" When did I say that non-living things were interested in wealth? I said that it was an inherent value placed in it by humanity. Also, just to glaze over your stats about the price in gold is fluxuating, how does any of this hold any relevance? While the PRICE of gold may fluxuate, it's representation of wealth does not change, and has always been there since the metal was discovered. The price of something does not affect it's inherent value. I also fail to see how the bowerbird factors into the debate, as:a) You've pointed out that these arguments are supposed to be abortion related. I fail to see how this is relevant to abortion.b) Even if relevant, I fail to see any sort of point or imapct."Because _all_ valuations associated with desirability are actually relative, affected by the Law of Supply and Demand"False. Even outside of supply and demand, gold still has the inherent value of weath, as that is what it represents. Even if an ounce of gold was worth a dollar, it still would not change it's inherent value." I originally wrote: "... a rock has no desires whatsoever." Con interpreted it as: "... non-living things cannot experience desire." ... That has nothing to do with what I actually wrote."False, it has everything to do with what you wrote. Right before you wrote that, you also wrote this:"Desire is a phenomenon typically associated with living things"And then right after you said my point had no relevance, you wrote this:" non-living things have no desires"This is exactly where I derrived my argument from. Don't let him be a moving target and edit his arguments mid-way through the round. My refutations are still valid, and thus his first premise is invalid. Since his syllogism is thus de-railed, you negate.He drops the arguments against his second premise, so extend those.Now, let's go ahead and tally up what he dropped.1. Arguments against second premise.2. Refutation against defining inherent and value as two seperate words (precludes desirability)3. That we should prefer definition four for value instead of one (precludes desirability)4. The arguments against the third premise of the syllogism.So we can see that dropped arguments 1 and 4 invalidate the syllogism itself in two different places. So two reasons to negate there. Then dropped arguments 2 and 3 preclude the debate from desirability, which make the entire syllogism as a whole invalid, so we're at four reasons to negate. Factor in refutations and all, and it should be fairly simple to see who won this debate.Feel free to give conduct to my opponent for the forfeit, that one was my bad. But do not simply JUST vote on FF, read the debate and decide on a winner. But with this, I conclude the debate, having invalidated my opponent's arguments and proven his stance wholely false. Inherent value does exist.