The Science of Rights

Thank you, Mike 10-4. As noted above, I will spend Round 3 rebutting my opponent's Round 2 arguments. In Round 4, I will briefly rebut his Round 3 arguments and conclude.Before I begin my rebuttal, however, I will address one particular request that my opponent made in Round 3. My opponent has asked me to present evidence of my claim that he is indeed the author of the video. Very well, then. My opponent usually styles his username as "Mike10four," and under this screen name has promoted this video and his book for some time - on Twitter, Mashable, and in comment threads on various websites. [1][2][3][4] The youtube user page for Mike10Four identifies the name associated with the account as "Mike Takac," whose sole upload is the video under discussion. [5] If you review the youtube comments, "Mike Takac" responds to a comment by Eric Johnson. The comment duplicates the closing paragraph of my opponent's Round 2 argument verbatim. I trust my opponent will concede authorship and we can close this particular matter.My opponent provides no almost no arguments for the videoMy opponent's Round 2 remarks are better suited to a book report than a debate. Instead of laying out a case for the video - either the presentation or the content - he merely summarizes the video and applies flattering adjectives ("the focus smoothly switched..." "a bold move"). In order to argue for a piece of visual media, one must do more than simply say what was in it and that they liked it. My opponent failed to lay out a case for why anyone should care to watch this video. The subject of this debate is not natural rights or the constructal law. The subject is rather particular video; that is the debate my opponent chose and framed. Whether the arguments in the video are correct is only relevant to the extent it affects the quality of the video presentation. To prevail, my opponent needs to tell us why the arguments in the video make it a worthwhile video to watch, not simply reiterate the video's arguments about natural rights. The video can make its own arguments. This leaves me with very little to rebut, except for a handful of the aforementioned adverbs (nothing in the video "smoothly" shifts), as my opponent makes almost no points that aren't already contained in the video itself. The video contains no ideas that will enhance human flourishing.The closest my opponent comes to making an argument for the video is in his statements that knowledge of the principles articulated in the video could "reduc[e] global conflict" and "benefit humanity." With these remarks, my opponent makes an attempt justify the content of the video, rather than simply restate it.Those are deeply admirable goals, and I have no doubt that my opponent truly believes that his beliefs about natural rights could be significantly beneficial to humanity. (Again, that's why I initially considered abandoning this debate. My opponent is obviously sincere, and it's no fun to beat up on good intentions poorly executed.)My opponent's (still somewhat unclear) thesis - the idea he believes will contribute to human flourishing - is that the inalienability of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a scientific principle. Now, there's nothing remotely scientific about natural rights theory, and my opponent's position is too vague to be testable or falsifiable. But even setting aside the question of whether my opponent's thesis is correct or not, it nevertheless contributes no useful or helpful insights to society.Consider that even if my opponent's thesis is adopted on a widespread basis, there is no reason to think it would have any particular positive effect on society. All that the video really argues is that the bare right to pursue survival is reflective of scientific principles - this gives us no insight into the civil and political rights that Jefferson was referring to. If we adopt the principle concerning the base urge to pursue survival, then all we have justified is a Hobbesian state of nature, a war of all against all. To elevate ourselves past that point, we must consider ourselves as members of our communities, and think in terms of our social relationships. It is only within societies and communities that a more advanced set of civil and political rights can emerge - and that puts us flat into the realm of political philosophy and "metaphysics" that my opponent seems so keen to avoid. [1] https://twitter.com...[2] http://mashable.com...[3] http://ivaluemygunrights.com...[4] http://www.fri-tv.dk...[5] https://www.youtube.com...