There is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships

Thanks Pro. I. Preface The exclusion of incestuous relationships which results in childbirth is noted. I will avoid using this as an argument. The resolution sets the burden of proof squarely on Pro, so if my nts are more convincing, I win, or if I negate all of Pro's arguments, I also win. So without further ado... II. Incest is Destructive to the Family Unit Note that family units, especially in the third world, are of increasing dependence for especially the younger members. With children living with their parents for longer than ever before, expecially in light of rising house prices, it follows that by allowing incest relationships adds a large unnecessary stress onto such an important unit. Remember that most relationships invariably end in separation, and marriages also exciting ting very high divorce rates (typically above 30%).[2] That being the case, the familial 'safety net' after a failed relationship is going to be increasingly stressed if that relationship was incestuous. The reasons for this should be quite obvious, it is significantly more difficult to divorce yourself from the person as a result from a bad relationship if it is a member of your immediate family. There are many other examples one could give, even just sexual advancements of say a parent or sibling onto another would inevitably result in uncomfortable, familial destructive results. By having incest as taboo, then even sexual advancements, open attraction, etc would become remain socially unacceptible, and the absence of these is clearly of benefit to the family unit. If we value the efficacy of the family unit as a positive impact in society, then we should see anything that unnecessarily jeopardises it to be an unacceptable act. It is 'wrong'. III. Institutes/facilitates child abuse One of the major sects of child abuse are sexual abuses done by parent to child. In today's society, clearly if we see any sexual relations occurring between parent and child, it is a clear instance of child abuse, and the 'consensual' defence is non-existent, it does not and should not matter whether of not the child was willing or not. Parents are in a special position of responsibility of the child, a far more significant position than say for example, teachers are. That being the case we should value the relationship between parent and child of utmost importance, especially given that such relationships significantly affect the mental well-being of the child in later life. By having incest socially acceptable, we open the door to obscuring clear instances of child abuse, and as such, shoot ourselves in the foot when attempting to apply jurisdiction to them. I will leave these two contentions as they are and reenforce them in later rounds as needed, now for rebuttals... IV. Rebuttals IVA. Liberties Pro's first argument states something to the effect that incestual sexual activities should be considered liberties, especially if done behind closed doors, presumably because they will not impact society. However this is clearly a rather myopic view of incest, as nothing occurs within a vacuum. And while I will quickly concede that incestual relationships that are most entirely benign to both family and society, I will quickly contend that the same can be said for virtually any sexual relationship, including paedophillic and bestial. Clearly there are reasons why we view the latter two as unacceptible even if done out of view of public, and are not considered liberties, even if consenting. That being the case it is clear that their 'right' is something that can be either taken away from them in lieu of reasons such as those I gave in my opening arguments, or 'granted' in the view that all rights are given. Even this being the case, it doesn't address the resolution 'There is nothing wrong with incest', as having a liberty, or right doesn't mean that this particularly right is not 'wrong' in the light of society. IVB. Japanese Porn I think my mouth hit the floor when I read this argument. Forgive me if this is a strawman, but Pro's argument seems to be the following: P1) ??? P2) Incest sells in the Japanese porn market C) Incest is socially acceptable Pro did expand a bit, with 4chan's b forum etc, which follows the same reasoning. So to tie what pro presented to the resolution, we need to fill in the missing premise, which needs to be an A premise to form a BARBARA syllogism. The most obvious one seems to be: P1) Anything that sells in the Japanese porn market is socially acceptable P2) Incest sells in the Japanese porn market C) Incest is socially acceptable This missing premise is rather easy to refute, and a colourful view of the Japanese porn market also upturns examples such as "chikan" (public train molestation), rape-roleplays, as well as hentai porn (which itself is rife with examples of paedophilia, rape, and inter-special sex). I will not post the references here (for obvious reasons), PM me if you require these. Anyway, given that we have examples that clearly falsify the hidden premise, and also the fact that pro has not actually supported this hidden premise, it is just assumed, then his argument is rightly unsound. I think Pro may have been attempting to argue for 'social views' on the situation, I ask Pro for clarification here. IVC. Cousins Forgive me, we didn't set a definition of incest, but my working definition is that which is set by UK law, which does not include cousinship within the definition.[1] but this runs into Pro's previous point, a trend towards fewer relationships being seen as incestious, or wrong, does not indicate that 'There is nothing wrong with nicest' as per the debate resolution, it only indicates it is 'less wrong than before'. V. Conclusion I think we have illustrated a decent portion of the debate now, I entered the debate unsure of my position, but as I stand now I feel that the balance of evidence and judgement falls rightly on. Y side of the fence. Back to Pro! VI. References 1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...