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.
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 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.
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.
Freedom
I 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 Requested
I 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.
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?