Instigator / Pro
14
1439
rating
10
debates
30.0%
won
Topic
#5758
Filial Piety as a generally encouraged value
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description
Filial Piety,
The honoring of one's Mother and Father.
https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-12.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietas
In this debate,
This does not apply so strongly as to blind obedience or giving all of oneself to undeserving parents.
. .
Debater Con must assume such to be outliers or behaviors in which Filial Piety would be given to a less degree though still on ones mind.
Any who accept, accept that the Burden of Proof is upon 'both Pro and Con, not just Pro.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Ah cool, honestly you were on my mind as one of the people I thought might make this an interesting debate,
As you appear to be from a culture where the concept occurs frequently.
I didn't see any debates for the subject, so I thought why not.
Well, my arguments then.
(1) Rational Interest
(1A) if you treat your parents well,
Your parents and your children are encouraged to treat you well.
(1B) One's parents often hold power, wealth, knowledge,
By treating them who have been around longer and collected more,
One may inherit both in their life and death,
May be stronger protected in life, circle the family wagons against enemies,
Enjoy the fruits of good harvest and protection in famine,
Learn from their life experiences.
(1C) Exhibit one's own steadfastness,
If you abandon your parents, how can others trust you to treat them well.
(2) Reciprocity
(2A) Our parents are those who nursed us, raised us, gave to us.
Do many not desire to return good will and actions?
(3) Closeness
(3A) We are of the same flesh and blood,
How can there not be attachment?
How can there not be value?
Con
#2
"The honoring of one's Mother and Father"
I guess this is the agreed upon definition. I can already think of many exceptions, like abusive parents and parents who harm their children.
My opponent might say that such exceptions dont apply, but he is wrong simply because:
Filial piety, if accepted, would be taught to all children
Taught to all children = taught to children who have abusive parents
Taught to children who have abusive parents = Children dont have enough knowledge to make difference between abusive and non-abusive parents
Children dont have enough knowledge to make difference between abusive and non-abusive parents = Children who have abusive parents would think they need to honor their abusive parents.
Taught to all children = Children who have abusive parents would think they need to honor their abusive parents
Now, I am gonna keep this short and just present a counter value right now: Freedom.
Freedom is most important, because
people getting what they want = is most important to them
This cannot be denied in any way, since opposite of this doesnt even exist. Importance is determined by wants.
People want the most to have their wants realized = individual freedom is most important to individual
Thus, a society with greatest number of non-contradictive freedoms is ideal, thus any different value cannot be logically justified.
Round 2
Pro
#3
In the description, it is 'explicitly stated,
"Debater Con must assume such to be outliers or behaviors in which Filial Piety would be given to a less degree though still on ones mind."
Thus,
Half your argument does not apply to this debate, however I will respond in the comments, as it 'is a worthwhile consideration.
Freedom,
An excellent argument that surely has an appeal to many parts of the modern world that emphasize it.
However,
Doing whatever one wants in the moment, does not mean they get what they wanted 10 seconds ago, or 10 seconds later.
If people are not encouraged towards restraint and certain actions in life, then they can be prone to disaster.
The link I use mentions marshmallows, but replace marshmallow with Grain Harvest, if one does not restrain freedom within oneself, then it can lead to famine.
If society does not encourage and persuade against one's first impulse, it can lead to unwanted ends.
Doing whatever one wants,
Does not mean that there are not wants that one does not know one wants.
A child may want to play with a gun, or swallow a razor blade,
Doesn't mean they wanted to be dead.
Absolute Freedom, is not ideal, I argue.
Rather, Education, Encouragement, Forced Restraint, to degrees are preferable.
It need not be absolute control, all the time, or forever,
But Filial Piety seems to me a useful value in life, that if one is a friend to another, it is a fine value to encourage.
Con
#4
Half your argument does not apply to this debate
False, as explained in previous round. Since you will be teaching children who have no way of making difference between abuse and non-abuse in every single case, your suggestion cannot avoid the fact that you will convince some children with abusive parents that they need to honor their parents.
Further, nothing in description said that these arguments dont apply. My opponent must quote description where it says that these arguments dont apply. Description only mentions "blind obedience" and "giving all to abusive parents", neither of which represent every case of abuse, since it is possible to sometimes disobey abusive parents while obeying them most of the time. My opponent must defend that this is okay.
If my opponent wanted to say that his topic is actually: "Children should be taught to honor their parents only if it results in good and if their parents are good", not only would he be trying to convert a topic into literal truism tautology (should means good) which ignores real world, but he would again be wrong because neither he neither children have way of knowing which case results in good or which parents are good.
Further, he must defend the topic to be true under all circumstances, even those where its not possible to confirm if parents are abusive or not.
Thus, my opponent would have to run under assumption that parents are good, and then teach kids to respect their parents, as opposite case is impossible. He cannot possibly know with precision which parents are good and which are bad in each case. Thus, the topic is made impossible to apply. Since impossible topics are false by logic, it seems that this was an easy win.
Doing whatever one wants in the moment, does not mean they get what they wanted 10 seconds ago, or 10 seconds later.
This is irrelevant, as person's wants changing over time doesnt change that person's wants are what person wants. Even if I want an apple today, where yesterday I wanted orange, it doesnt change that both wants were important to me at some point. If I think that future me wants banana the most, of course one could choose to sacrifice present wants to uphold future wants. It is still the wants which are being upheld. There is nothing more important than wants in life. Thus, my opponent must explain what is more important than wants. So far he didnt explain it.
If people are not encouraged towards restraint and certain actions in life, then they can be prone to disaster.
Certain actions and restraints are only good if they increase freedom, thus this is irrelevant too.
The link I use mentions marshmallows, but replace marshmallow with Grain Harvest, if one does not restrain freedom within oneself, then it can lead to famine.If society does not encourage and persuade against one's first impulse, it can lead to unwanted ends.
This too is negated by the fact that wants exist throughout whole life and not just at the moment. Since my argument was not limited to just wants at the moment or first impulse, this is just a strawman.
Besides, my opponent is mentioning unwanted situations as an argument against wants, but thats a contradiction as wants are by definition not unwanted. Thus, realizing the greatest number of most important wants through whole life cannot result in lowering of realized wants. Thus, no argument can be made against my case, since the only opposite case is realizing less than greatest number of most important wants.
My opponent wanted to make a strawman out of my argument, or he just didnt understand it.
Doing whatever one wants,Does not mean that there are not wants that one does not know one wants.
There is always something person doesnt know. Thus, known wants take priority since unknown wants by tautology cannot even be considered as they are unknown. However, my opponent's case is the one suffering from uncertainty principle, since he suggests children with good parents should be taught to honor their parents, yet there is no way to tell which parents are good or which will stop being good in the future.
A child may want to play with a gun, or swallow a razor blade,Doesn't mean they wanted to be dead.
If child wants to live, then it makes sense not to give child a gun to play with, or razor blade to swallow. So saving child's life upholds child's wants.
Further, my opponent wants to apply real world scenarios to my case, while ignoring real world scenarios of his case.
"Should" either does either doesnt deal with real world scenarios.
If it does, my opponent's case is disproved since it cannot be applied to real world.
If it doesnt, then my case greatly outweighs my opponent's case, since everyone having freedom forever means no one is ever without freedom, thus no freedom can be ever destroyed in any way, no bad things can ever happen.
So my opponent must pick if he wants to debate imaginary worlds or real world.
Right now, it seems that he wants to apply real world to my case and imaginary world to his case. However, having failed to come up with any argument against my case other than strawmans, it seems that my case is still preferable.
Absolute Freedom, is not ideal, I argue.
My argument was about non-contradictive freedom, but sure if you want to attack an argument which cannot logically be denied, go for it.
Rather, Education, Encouragement, Forced Restraint, to degrees are preferable.
These are only preferable if they give more freedom than they take, thus at no point is this argument against freedom.
It need not be absolute control, all the time, or forever,
Sadly, your position in this debate did not set a time limit, thus you must defend that it should last forever.
For example, you can argue that it should last 1 second, but your position doesnt say 1 second. Thus, since your position didnt define time, one can only assume it includes all time since a different case cannot be reasonably selected.
But Filial Piety seems to me a useful value in life, that if one is a friend to another, it is a fine value to encourage
Yet if one is not a friend to another, it is not a fine value to encourage.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Disagreement over Blind Obedience, Abusive Parents, and Debate Description
Even if one has good to average parents, does not mean one always still 'wants to follow Filial Piety, and it was such views I was interested in debating.
I argue that my words of Filial Piety in this debate not applying to "undeserving parents", as well as "blind obedience". made the debate descriptions clear.
And I shall leave it to the voters if any, to decide if my or Cons interpretation of the debate description to be correct.
The Common Sense of Restricting Freedom to a Degree, in Favor of Other Values
I argue the type of common sense that I am willing to bet most voters will share with me applies to wants, and remind the voter that the Burden Of Proof rests on both Pro and Con, per the debate description.
Freedom is good, but it is something people 'voluntarily give up in society, to a 'degree.
It is something we restrict in children, to a 'degree, until they have matured and developed knowledge and understanding to a degree.
If someone wants to burn down the barn one moment, they usually restrict their own freedom, and do not act on that momentary want, even if that want occurs frequently, they restrict their freedom to do whatever they want, out of consideration for others or for material gain.
People have contradictory wants in life,
Wants/Freedom in itself is NOT what is most important to most people. It is the 'Correct wants.
One of our wants is the giving of Freedom to people, hence why there exists in many societies, people who practice actions we consider wrong or harmful. But Freedom is not unrestricted. More than infinite freedom, we want our children to be happy, to be healthy, and good. Thus there exist freedoms and practices that are restricted.
Even when the children have grown, freedom is restricted, both by law, and by themselves.
Filial Piety argues that rather than doing whatever one wants without concern, they should restrict their own Freedom some to honoring for their parents, caring for their parents.
And I 'have given rational and emotional wants for 'why one should restrict their own freedom to a degree, and embrace Filial Piety.
Freedom
I argue we do not live in a world where everyone 'can have complete freedom,
It's the same problem I have with Anarchy,
Without 'some laws, evil people will take power and insist that their freedom to swing their fist, does 'not stop at my face.
People live in a society, they impose laws between one another, even at the smallest level of two individuals. My property, my alone time.
Definition Requested
I do not know what non-contradictive freedom is?
I do not,
Need to defend absolute control, all the time, or forever.
Common sense and our societies 'obviously shows people being defined as adults at some point, 18 in America for instance, and gaining a number of rights and freedoms.
Or 21, gaining the freedom to drink alcohol.
If this debate was about water being good, I would not have to defend drinking water to the point that it would kill a person. Common Sense, argue I.
Con
#6
Disagreement over Blind Obedience, Abusive Parents, and Debate DescriptionEven if one has good to average parents, does not mean one always still 'wants to follow Filial Piety, and it was such views I was interested in debating.I argue that my words of Filial Piety in this debate not applying to "undeserving parents", as well as "blind obedience". made the debate descriptions clear.And I shall leave it to the voters if any, to decide if my or Cons interpretation of the debate description to be correct.
My opponent wants to change description to something unmentioned in description. This is really poor behavior.
Nowhere in description did it say "my position doesnt apply to undeserving parents", but merely "not giving all to undeserving parents". I dont see why my opponent feels the need to lie about what he wrote in description, and why he thinks he can change description after debate started.
Also, his position didnt define time, so he cannot say that it doesnt mean "always honoring your parents", since his position, by not defining time made the topic about all time due to lack of time exception.
The Common Sense of Restricting Freedom to a Degree, in Favor of Other ValuesI argue the type of common sense that I am willing to bet most voters will share with me applies to wants, and remind the voter that the Burden Of Proof rests on both Pro and Con, per the debate description.
My opponent didnt respond to argument that freedom can only be restricted to uphold greater freedom. He just repeated same point which was already negated.
He also didnt mention which value is more important than freedom, so his response is more like some rambling where I have to guess what he thinks because he refuses to say it.
It was already explained that wants determine importance, thus having the greatest amount of important wants realized is most important by tautology.
Wants = determine importance
Realized wants = most important
The only values which are important = values which are wanted
Thus, no value can be more important than all wants, but some wants can be more important than other wants.
Obviously, if some value is never wanted by a person, such value is worthless to the person, unwanted by the person. Here too, opposite case doesnt exist, because saying that some value is valuable to a person even if person never in their whole life wanted such value is a logical error, since value is determined by want. My opponent didnt present a different case of how value is determined, thus we can say that different case doesnt exist.
Also, my opponent is saying that people need to be taught to honor their parents, but that just means those people dont think they should honor their parents. Otherwise, why would they need to be taught?
Freedom is good, but it is something people 'voluntarily give up in society, to a 'degree.It is something we restrict in children, to a 'degree, until they have matured and developed knowledge and understanding to a degree.
This is an is-should fallacy, and irrelevant. Some freedom can be given up to uphold greater freedom. I dont see what my opponent fails to understand here.
If someone wants to burn down the barn one moment, they usually restrict their own freedom, and do not act on that momentary want, even if that want occurs frequently, they restrict their freedom to do whatever they want, out of consideration for others or for material gain.
My opponent again mentions momentary want, so I will just assume he didnt even read my previous round which explains that there are future wants. There are even wants which are more important than other wants. Consideration for others is also a want, material gain is also a want, as well as wanting to not get in trouble. Further, the wants of others matter too. My opponent seems to be attacking some fantasy strawmen for this whole debate.
People have contradictory wants in life,
This doesnt mean that wants dont matter. Wants are the only thing that matters. When two wants are in contradiction, a more important want is accepted. Different wants have different priority.
Wants/Freedom in itself is NOT what is most important to most people. It is the 'Correct wants.
Wants have priority. However, all wants hold some importance to people. Its just that some hold more than other.
One of our wants is the giving of Freedom to people, hence why there exists in many societies, people who practice actions we consider wrong or harmful.
So my opponent concedes that he wants to give freedom to people.
But Freedom is not unrestricted.
Freedom is only restricted by freedom.
More than infinite freedom, we want our children to be happy, to be healthy, and good.
These dont contradict with freedom. People can be happy, healthy and good, and still have freedom. However, forcing an adult to only eat healthy food is bad, even if healthy. Thus, we see that what person wants is most important to that person. Further, you cannot force people to be what you consider "good". Its the wants which determine if something is good, just as wants determine if its good for person to eat healthy food, or is junk food better and more wanted. Thus, we see that since wants determine if something is good or not, only the system which enables greatest number of important wants to be realized is the best system. Thus, freedom is the best system and best value.
Thus there exist freedoms and practices that are restricted.
I dont see why my opponent repeats a negated point, but once again, freedom is restricted only to uphold greater freedom.
Even when the children have grown, freedom is restricted, both by law, and by themselves.
Negated. Freedom of every individual can only be restricted to uphold greater freedom. Anything else would be wrong and unwanted. Thus, only working to increase freedom is the best. Kinda like limiting freedom to kill so that many people could live and practice countless other freedoms.
Filial Piety argues that rather than doing whatever one wants without concern, they should restrict their own Freedom some to honoring for their parents, caring for their parents.
If person doesnt want to honor his parents, why should he? If his parents abused him, there is no need to honor them.
And I 'have given rational and emotional wants for 'why one should restrict their own freedom to a degree, and embrace Filial Piety.
Since those wants you gave arent held by all people, those wants arent universal, thus topic is disproved.
FreedomI argue we do not live in a world where everyone 'can have complete freedom,
This was already explained in previous round, but since my opponent clearly doesnt read what I write, or is unable to understand it, I will simply repeat that freedom is restricted to uphold greater freedom.
It's the same problem I have with Anarchy,Without 'some laws, evil people will take power and insist that their freedom to swing their fist, does 'not stop at my face.
Same as before, freedom is restricted to uphold greater freedom, not some non-freedom value.
People live in a society, they impose laws between one another, even at the smallest level of two individuals. My property, my alone time.
Irrelevant rambling. No one here argued to abolish laws.
Definition RequestedI do not know what non-contradictive freedom is?
My opponent said that wants can be contradictive, yet he doesnt know what non-contradictive wants are?
Those are the wants that dont contradict.
First, wants at individual level which dont contradict to each other.
Then wants at society's level not contradicting each other.
Obviously, greatest number of equal options for all people is most ideal for all.
Kinda like, if no one had a freedom to eat bananas, everyone would only have 1 option: to not eat bananas. But if everyone had freedom to eat or not eat bananas, then it follows that each person would have 2 options: to eat a banana or not to eat a banana. Thus, each person would do what he wants from those two options. In such way, freedom works.
I do not,Need to defend absolute control, all the time, or forever.
My opponent didnt say in description what time he defends, so it can only be always. However, generally(in most cases) can also be understood as most of the time.
Common sense and our societies 'obviously shows people being defined as adults at some point, 18 in America for instance, and gaining a number of rights and freedoms.
If you mentioned that in description or topic, maybe it would count. However, since "common sense" is unproved, and our societies's current practices unmentioned in debate's description, one can only assume that my opponent is running away from actual debate topic and trying to change it to something different from start.
If this debate was about water being good, I would not have to defend drinking water to the point that it would kill a person. Common Sense, argue I.
Contrary to the popular belief, using one logical fallacy to justify another logical fallacy is not common sense, but just two logical fallacies.
If you make a claim without mentioning time it applies to, or place it applies to, then one can only assume it applies to all places or all times.
This is because you have no way of explaining what time it applies to if you didnt mention it when creating debate.
Then trying to cherry pick suitable for you time unmentioned in the topic is just dishonest debating. If you cannot defend "always" then you can defend most of the time since topic did say generally (in most cases). But you dont even want to defend most cases, which is either most adults serving parents whole life, or all adults serving parents for most of their life.
In other words, if you want to debate something specific, you should probably mention it in debate topic, since this topic changing is poor behavior.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Well, it's too bad myself and Con disagree on some debate parameters,
But I 'was mildly curious what they might say on freedom.
I have given reasons for an individual to be taught, or to teach others filial piety.
It seems odd to me, that I should have to reiterate the description so many times, but ah well.
I stated the topic "Filial Piety,"
Gave definitions "The honoring of one's Mother and Father.
Stated that
"In this debate,
This" (Filial Piety) "does not apply so strongly as to blind obedience or giving all of oneself to undeserving parents.
Debater Con must assume such to be outliers or behaviors in which Filial Piety would be given to a less degree though still on ones mind.
Any who accept, accept that the Burden of Proof is upon 'both Pro and Con, not just Pro."
Seems pretty clear to me.
I confess that I am not able to follow Cons arguments very well, except for the abusive parents argument, which I insist does not apply to this debate.
There seems to be some gist that society should have the greatest number of freedoms, and that it should prioritize whatever individuals want, so long as they don't infringe on others wants.
I am unsure how Filial Piety contradicts freedom, any more than teaching a child various other values in life.
I see no reason to make any further argument on the Teaching of Filial Piety not being Absolute Controlling. I already addressed this, and shall leave it to the voter, if any vote.
My conclusion of the debate are,
That my opponent spent too much time attacking the topic in a way that the description outlaws, and in accepting the debate, my opponent agreed to the parameters I set.
That my opponent missed the meat of the debate by their vaguely made statement of Freedom above Filial Piety,
I say 'statement, as it seemed to me 'mostly assertion, with the exception of him stating by Freedom he means Freedom which does not prevent other's Freedom.
Con also makes argument that people should not be forced to only eat healthy food.
People 'still have a choice to follow Filial Piety, argue I,
Additionally it does not take away from freedom to raise children to eat healthy, or encourage other members of society to eat healthy.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Well, that is the debate,
Thank you Con, for accepting.
Con
#8
"does not apply so strongly as to blind obedience or giving all of oneself to undeserving parents.Debater Con must assume such to be outliers or behaviors in which Filial Piety would be given to a less degree though still on ones mind
Description clearly says:
Outliers = giving all of oneself to undeserving parents
Outliers = blind obedience
Having abusive parents =/= giving all of oneself to undeserving parents
Having abusive parents =/= blind obedience
Thus, we see that outliers mentioned in description cannot apply to all cases of abuse. They dont even apply to most cases of abuse.
There seems to be some gist that society should have the greatest number of freedoms, and that it should prioritize whatever individuals want, so long as they don't infringe on others wants.I am unsure how Filial Piety contradicts freedom, any more than teaching a child various other values in life.
Its a very simple tautology presented throughout debate.
1. Most wanted by person = realization of person's wants
2. Most wanted by person is realization of person's wants = No difference can be made in value of wants of individuals
3. No difference can be made in value of wants of individuals = Each individual's wants are equally important.
4. Each individual's wants are equally important = no individual may destroy another or prevent another from realizing his wants.
5. No individual may destroy another or prevent another from realizing his wants = Greatest number of equal freedoms must be given to each individual
My opponent didnt seem to disagree with 1, since he never explained what is it that is more important to individual than his wants.
Tautologically, there is nothing more wanted by individual than realization of his wants, thus there is nothing more important to him.
Wants are obviously sorted by priority in each individual, but to put it simply, nothing can logically have higher value than greatest want.
Also, my opponent provided no way of determining why wants of one individual are more important than wants of other, so logically, with neither being more important than other, they can only be equal.
This sets a pretty clear standard that only progressing towards freedom for all can be logically justified, thus no deviations from it can be justified.
Thus, teaching non-freedom (filial piety) cannot be logically justified, since filial piety is not just opposite of freedom (thus contradicts it), but filial piety cannot even be applied without taking away freedom from individuals who would otherwise have freedom, and without reducing time available for teaching about freedom.
The question from previous round wasnt answered: Why do you have to teach people filial piety if people already agree with it? The only possible answer is that some people obviously dont agree with it, that they prefer their freedom over mostly serving their parents.
Thus, people can choose to honor their parents without anyone teaching them, making such teaching pointless. Obviously, only the child knows best if he should honor his parents, thus no external teaching is even necessary, since no external teaching can account for what child experienced.
Since equal freedom obviously has higher value than any other value by tautology, it follows that those people should anyway follow freedom and not follow filial piety, making the teaching of it pointless as well as harmful.
Thus, only if people choose filial piety, it is good. No teaching of it is even necessary, since any teaching of it reduces the amount of time of teaching of freedom, as well as increasing chance of honoring abusive parents which my opponent demonstrated no way to avoid.
My opponent never defined anything in this debate from the very start. He never defined how much honoring should a person do other than excluding just full devotion, or for how long should person honor his parents, or how much should this teaching be taught.
Thus, with no clear definitions of amount and time given at start, there is nothing to debate here, and with freedom being most important value by tautology, its impossible to justify teaching an opposite value along with it.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's Resolution was combatted by Con throughout, yet Con did not bother to request a modification based on Con's eventual argument that abusive parents do not deserve filial piety. Pro's description, however, already sidelined that argument as an outlier, and not an arguable point in the mainstream of most parent/child relationships. Nor did Con ever accept Pro's description of debate scope. Pro's R1 offered very clear evidence of the benefits of filial piety as being beneficial to both parents and children, the which describes every single member of society as most of us are parents, and all of us are children, whether or not all always can be described by these terms throughout life. After all, Pro's Resolution is that such piety is "generally encouraged," but Con wants to ignore that scope. Pro win's the argument section.
Pro's arguments, being well described for scope in the Resolution and description, met the requirement of better legibility, whereas Con's legibility was flawed by not complying with the scope of either the Resolution or description. As a result, Con's argument were more confusing.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro lists many benefits to explain why he believes it is encouraged…
But this debate boils down to a kritik of awful parents exist.
Pro is correct that his description accounted for that. Con would have done better to point out that “but still the turtle moves.” Which is to say the rule is denying the truth, so should be dismissed.
The bigger problem I’m of course seeing with shitty parents, is that they introduce times children ought to not have that value; regardless of if they’re abused into believing it anyways. The debate is after all on if it’s a generally encouraged value, not if it ought to be (or even if better values like freedom exist). So yes, the kritik doesn’t shift the needle much even if allowed.
A better tactic would have been to point out that it’s often reduced to a vice instead of a value (not merely in the extreme outliers), and that most children get told of the value without being properly taught it (usually exposed to it the once or twice a year they attend church). Maybe even leverage divorce rates, and assume that most of them get taught to hate their parents (a bad stereotype, but a potential fun line of reasoning).
Thanks for voting.
That people should suffer, love, and support their abusive parents, just isn't a viewpoint that appeals to me to argue.
Though I suppose it 'can be a problem for some people, some cultures.
I suppose the Con I was expecting, was to be more about the virtues of selfishness, or a focus on quid pro quo rather than a focus on Parent/Child.
Which I think Con 'could have done, as a number of my arguments 'had Self Interest and Reciprocity as themes.
Con could have argued that Reciprocity, 'not Parent/Child was what I was encouraging, and argued alternate ways it could be established.
Though I also included Moral Assumed Values in my arguments,
Because I 'do lean a bit towards a duty to family, even in situations not in ones interest, or when that duty is not returned.
Abuse, physical or mental, just seemed a low hanging fruit to me,
For 'most? people, it's a cutoff moment with family, I didn't think it would 'examine the nature of family, so much as the nature of unacceptable abuse.
"describes every single member of society as most of us are parents, and all of us are children, whether or not all always can be described by these terms throughout life." - fauxlaw
Something I'm not sure I thought on until I read this, is societies with alternate methods of families.
I can imagine North Korea (The country not the user) seeing a greater value in loyalty to the government, than the family, authoritarian regimes that might reward individuals for reporting on their parents or children's non state approved activities.
In Plato's The Republic, I 'think the abolishment of family was encouraged, to prevent nepotism, the accumulation of private wealth, and family loyalty over the community.
@Barney
Thanks for voting,
@NoBodyInParticular
While there is a debate to be had about abusive parents, it wasn't the debate I immediately wanted to have. If one wants debate parameters changed, they can always ask before a debate.
Likewise if this was a debate about having police forces in society, I'm sure abusive or corrupt police 'could factor into it, but I might prefer to focus on other aspects in such a debate, to see other specifics more clearly. Such as alternate methods or financial costs.
I think if I had allowed abusive parents, it would have too easily shifted the debate from a debate about 'normal 'use.
I 'think, Confucianism accepted limits to Filial Piety,
Confucius wrote of a small stick, you should accept punishment; with a big stick, you run.
Mencius wrote that rebellion against the emperor can be justified
While it can, is argued, and some places practiced that one should practice Filial Piety even with abusive parents,
Or have a Police Force, even if they are abusive and corrupt,
It's a fairly common thought I think, of okay Filial Piety or Police force, just not with those people.
I'm more interested in 'Functioning Systems value, compared with other systems or values.
Though I suppose how frequent dysfunction occur, or how deep, are also worthy questions. I still think it's nice to approach some questions in pieces, rather than a whole. Though I did say 'Generally Filial Piety should be encouraged, that's because I expected abusive parents to be the usual focus, and I don't know the other pieces of the debate too well.
Sorry, but I will stick with the debate in the actual debate.
Can Filial Piety not be taught with a caveat?
Can children not also expect maternal or paternal piety?
Can they not be taught, the limits of Filial Piety?