Instigator / Pro
4
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#879
Migration is a Human Right
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
4
0
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
bsh1
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description
--Overview--
This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO above 1,505 to accept. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
Transnational migration ought to be a human right.
--Definitions--
Ought: expresses moral desirability
Human Right: a right afforded to all persons
Transnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks to Wrick-it-Ralph for accepting this debate. I look forward to a convivial exchange of ideas and a fun debate.
----------------
I. Overview
To possess a human right is not to possess an unlimited right. All rights are subject to restrictions and limitations which arise from the balancing of those rights against the rights and legitimate interests of others. The human right to life, for example, is not absolute; we recognize that it is morally permissible to kill to protect oneself or others from imminent danger.
When we say then that a human right is a right afforded to all persons, we are not saying that all persons can exercise that right in all circumstances. Rather, we are saying that all persons have this right prima facie, but that whether they can exercise it in any given circumstance is dependent on the balancing act that must take place to resolve competing rights claims.
Therefore, while my advocacy is that all persons possess a right to transnational migration, I recognize that limitations can and should be imposed on that right where necessary. Legitimate concerns related to public safety, public health, and public administration are just some of the interests against which the right to migrate must be balanced.
II. The Right to Leave
A. The "Right to Leave"
Imagine for a moment that I was born on a farm somewhere in rural Wyoming, and that, having spent my whole life there, I have a strong desire to see the world outside of my farm. Due to this strong desire, I do not wish to continue living on the farm, and so I make a conscious choice to pack up my belongings and leave.
Suppose, however, that my family prevents me from leaving. They catch me at the fence and say: "You were born here on this farm, and so you must remain here for life." There is obviously something morally wrong about this situation, namely, that I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander about the farm itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
Now, imagine for a moment that I am a citizen of some nation (let's call it Farmistan), and that, having spent my whole life there, I have a strong desire to see the world outside of my country. Due to this strong desire, I do not wish to continue living to continue living within Farmistan, and so I make a conscious choice to pack up my belongings and leave.
Suppose, however, that Farmistan prevents me from leaving. It catches me at the border and says: "You are a citizen of Farmistan, and so must remain here for life." Here too there is something obviously morally wrong about the situation, because, again, I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander within Farmistan itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
The moral demand that individuals not be held captive sans just cause is one powerful reason to believe in a "right to leave," that is, a right to be able to leave one's country. But there are other reasons as well, reasons which demonstrate the importance of the "right to leave" to the protection of other rights. Suppose that Farmistan is an oppressive country filled with crime and violence and corruption. My human rights to free expression, safety, life, due process, free association, and equality before the law may all be jeopardized. Possessing a "right to leave" is therefore fundamental for protecting a slew of other key rights.
Even if Farmistan were not such a bad place, the potential for any country to become dangerous or oppressive indicates that the right to leave is a necessary fail-safe against such a development. Similarly, even if Farmistan were wonderful, my human rights to pursue happiness, to have access to healthcare, to be with or found a family, etc. may require me to leave Farmistan. Hence, the "right to leave" is essential for the protection of these other rights as well. This is likely why the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights--an international treaty and human rights document--states: "Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own." [1]
Consequently, it can be confidently stated that all persons possess or ought to posses a "right to leave" their own country. That is true both because the right to leave is itself a right and because it is essential to protect and underpin other rights.
B. Leaving is Migrating
The right to leave implies that individuals have the right to cross borders and refuse to return. Thus, the right to leave is the right "of persons to move and resettle across international borders." To exit one place is the right to enter another, and so every right of exit is also a right of entry. This affirms the resolution.
Even if the right to leave and the right to migrate were not literally synonymous, the former would necessarily entail the latter. If I wanted to exercise my right to leave Farmistan, but was precluded from doing so because all the other countries in the word said, "the right to exit is not the same as the right to enter" (though I contend that is a false distinction), it would be the case that my right to leave would be useless. I cannot have a meaningful right to leave Farmistan if I do not have a right to go somewhere else, because without the right to go somewhere else, my right to leave is toothless and unenforceable. Ergo, any meaningful right to leave must be accompanied by or entail a right to migrate. This affirms the resolution.
Consequently, the right to exit is just another way of saying the right to enter; if you have one, you must have the other.
III. Community Ties
A. Communities Require Migration
As an American, I have the right to move to New York. Once in New York, I have the right to decide I do not want to stay, and would rather move to Arizona. Once in Arizona, I can decide to move to Idaho instead, or to any of the country's other fifty states. Being a citizen gives me license to move within my country, and I can make these moves for any reason I choose. Perhaps I'm moving to find a better job, perhaps I'm moving to be with a hot boyfriend, perhaps I just decided that bears were my spirit animal, so I just had to move to California. But the choice of when and where to move is my own. California cannot decide one day to say, "hey, we're not going to let in any non-Californians." This example clearly connects back to the preceding contention about the right to leave (and the two reasons for it), but it is also suggestive of a wholly new point related to community welfare.
In order to function properly, communities must have free movement internally. Imagine an America in which California suddenly became inaccessible. As familial ties slowly wither away and previously shared trajectories dis-align, California would become increasingly less tied to the rest of country. Not merely in the literal sense, but also socioculturally, governmentally, and cooperatively, etc. If, 100 years later, California suddenly became accessible once more, would it still be a part of our "American community" or would it have evolved into its own, distinct entity? To maintain community, you must maintain and cultivate the links that bind the membership together; the longer those links go untended, the more apart the membership is invariably going to become. The more isolated two populations are, the harder it becomes for them to maintain or construct communal bonds.
Therefore, any community ought to afford all of its members a right to migration in order that the community can function properly for the common welfare.
B. The Human Community
Humanity itself should be seen as a community. We are all intimately enmeshed with one another on a global scale, and the actions of one person or one population can deeply and seriously impact, from across the world, the welfare of another person or population. We are linked not just by trade ties, shared media, shared instruments of global governance, and shared ancestral and diasporic connections, but also by the cooperation we are engaged in to address global crises as diverse as HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human trafficking. If a community is a group of people cooperating for a common interest, then humanity clearly counts. That does not mean that humanity cooperates perfectly--no community does--but to suggest that we are just a pocket of isolated or barely linked groups is obviously and patently false.
Given this analysis, "we should not view national boundaries as having fundamental moral significance. Since boundaries are not coextensive with the scope of social cooperation, they do not mark the limits of social obligation." [2] Indeed, if it is the case that humanity counts as a community, then there must be a human right to migration. The community of humankind ought to afford all of its members a right to migration in order that the community can function properly for the common welfare.
Therefore, the resolution is affirmed by the acknowledgement of a common human community, a humanity deeply and inextricably interwoven.
IV. Conclusion
I have provided two (three, depending on how you count them) reasons to vote Pro. The first is rooted in the right to leave, which is both (a) a right itself and (b) necessary to protect other rights. The second is rooted in an understanding of community and the need for communities to have liberal movement internally. Both reasons demonstrate that, prima facie, the right to transnational migration ought to be a right afforded to all persons. Thus, I strongly affirm.
V. Sources
Con
#2
I thank my opponent for giving me an entertaining opening statement. The narrative led me by the hand through the story and it was very easy to read. Lets do this.
Terms
In your description, you clarified the topic by saying:
Transnational migration ought to be a human right.
I will paste your definitions so it doesn't look like I'm cherry picking.
Ought: expresses moral desirabilityHuman Right: a right afforded to all personsTransnational migration: the ability of persons to move and resettle across international borders
One problem I have with this is that a human right is defined as a subset of rights. I understand this is a distinction from say... animal rights, and I'm okay with that, but you didn't define what a right is. This means all I can know from your definition is that a human right is a kind of right (whatever that is) that is afforded to all humans.
I would define a right as being a liberty that is morally justified to have. Would you agree?
If not, I'm willing to hear your definition and we could work off that instead.
When you say Ought expresses moral desirability, Are you saying "x is objectively morally desirable" or are you saying "If I were you, I would find X morally desirable"?
Until we have resolved these terms, I will address your argument based off both generic definitions and based off my interpretation of your definitions.
The "Is/Ought" Distinction. (Hume's Guillotine)
In a nutshell, this philosophical problem has demonstrated that an ought statement can only logically follow from another ought statement. This causes an obvious infinite regress unless there is an intrinsic ought that can be drawn upon.
More specifically any "is" or even "if" statements (because "if" statements are logically congruent to is statements) cannot imply an ought statement. For instance, if it is raining outside and I say "it [is] raining, therefore you [ought] to use an umbrella" the person in question can infinitely ask you why this is the case and one will never be able to imply the ought. The conversation would go as follows.
P2: Why should I care if it's raining?
P1: Because you'll get wet without an umbrella.
P2: Why should I care if I get wet?
P1: Because if you get wet you'll be uncomfortable
P2: Why should I care if I'm uncomfortable?
P1: Because if you're uncomfortable for too long, it might cause you harm
P2: Why should I care if I'm harmed?
P1: Because if you get harmed for too long, you'll die.
P2: Why should I care if I die?
P1: Because people want to live in general.
P2: Why should I care if anybody wants to live?
From here it pretty much bottoms out and starts going into a circle that will revolve around either life or suffering until one side gets sick of talking.
This is why philosophy seems to indicate that Is can never imply ought. With respect to ought statements implying ought statements. A justified ought has already broken the barrier and can transfer it's justification up the chain of ought.
Let's assume in this case, that the life ought is intrinsic true. (hypothetically)
P1: You ought to live, and not having an umbrella could make you get sick and die, therefore you ought to take an umbrella.
P2: Okay.....
This is directly analogous to the topic. Although we can agree that the law does afford migration rights in some cases and in fact, we can agree on most of this topic, what I will not agree on here is that migration ought to be a right.
Right to Leave
I would agree that objectively the person in your scenario would indeed be a prisoner and would be having his legal rights violated assuming that such legal rights exist on that particular farm. However, due to the is ought distinction, there is no situation where we can say that the parents ought to allow their child to leave. The difference is that one of these statements is descriptive and the other is prescriptive. A prescriptive statement, is the equivalent of saying "This is what I would do if I was in your shoes". Technically, the statement is true in the sense that might be objectively what they would do in your situation, assuming they know everything that you know as well. However, nowhere in the statement is any sort of driving imperative that can objectively judge the morality of one's actions. Every moral that we draw is necessarily pragmatic and cannot be justified with logic, only explained.
I will extend this line of thinking to your community argument as well. I will say that such rights may be objectively enforced by the law of the land, but cannot be given as intrinsic imperatives.
Conclusion
Due to the is/ought distinction, combined with the implications of the topic, we must conclude that the right to migration follows the same rule and cannot be implied in the form of an ought statement. This means that Pro can never justify the topic with any kind of evidence, but rather make a pragmatic appeal. Saying we should accept some ought statement as an axiom to draw from. This would not be logical nor would it hold truth value. It would only be pragmatic. If pragmatism is all that matters, then vote Pro. If logic matters, if Con. If they both matter equally to you then good luck.
Your floor jefe
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thanks to Con for his reply. I will now defend my case.
----------------
I. The Is/Ought Problem
So, there are four things to note here right off the bat:
- Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof, he cannot successfully negate unless he either (1) runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden.
- Con does not establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all. His points seem almost entirely off-topic.
- Con's argument is confusingly phrased and incredibly vague. It is not actually clear what he is arguing and what his advocacy is. This not only creates an unfair burden for me, in that I now have to try to make sense out of a word miasma, but it also means judges should default to my case as it is the only one with a definable position.
- The Is/Ought problem is not an obstacle for my case.
As I found Con's explication of this question somewhat confusing, I will attempt to clarify here what the Is/Ought problem is precisely. The problem states that moral precepts cannot be derived from natural facts and states. For example, the statement "animals kill each other, and so killing is okay because it is natural" runs directly into the Is/Ought problem. That it "is" the case that animals kill each other does not mean it "ought" to be the case that killing is okay. This logic impermissibly transforms an "is" into an "ought," and so wrongly attempts to derive a moral precept from a material condition. This, however, does not mean that material facts are irrelevant to morality, just that moral values cannot be derived therefrom. But more on that in a moment.
Given that it will be necessary to clear up the confusion on this issue, "morality" is defined variously as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," "conformity to ideals of right human conduct," and "set of standards for good or bad behavior." [1-3] What is important in each of these definitions that morality is composed of a set of principles, ideals, or standards which inform the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the conduct being assessed.
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done. Take the case of utilitarianism, which argues that the moral precept is the maximization of happiness. This precept functions axiomatically. So, if as a utilitarian I say that "we ought to do X because it is going to save net lives," I do not run into the Is/Ought problem. If we are already defining the promotion of happiness as a moral precept axiomatically (and thus not derivately, as from a material fact), there is no dilemma. The axiomatic nature of the precept also prevents infinite regress. This is one example of how material facts are relevant to morality, and how this can be the case without running into the Is/Ought problem.
Unless Con is planning to argue that values running the gamut from life to liberty to safety to community should not be included in such an axiomatic scheme, then it is hard to see how his argument here makes any sense. At the heart of it, our moral intuitions clearly guide us to the notion that these values should be included in such a scheme, which creates a strong presumption against any argument for their dis-inclusion which Con might attempt to make.
Therefore, if we include as axiomatic those values and principles I name in my case, then we "ought" to act in ways which will uphold and respect them. So, if we value freedom, we ought not to keep people captive on farms. Indeed, we ought not to allow others to keep people captive on farms. Similarly, if we value community, we ought to ensure that the community is able to function well. This logic is hardly ground-breaking, and it is counterproductive for Con to challenge it.
Finally, this train of thought brings up another reason to throw Con's whole Is/Ought problem out of the window. If we constantly have to rehash prior questions like the Is/Ought issue, we will never get a chance to debate the later issues like the one expressed in the resolution. Keeping us at a single stasis level, which may never be fully resolved, is discursively counterproductive and serves to hold moral discourse hostage to a small set of foundational debates. While there are good times and places for raising these objections, where real violations of the Is/Ought problem occur, this is clearly not one of them. In the interest of debate and communication, we should reject this tactic of Con's outright.
II. Miscellaneous Issues
Given that Con has asked for a definition of a "right," which he could have done prior to accepting the debate, I will suggest to him that a right, in a moral context, is a moral entitlement, i.e. a freedom, capacity, good, outcome, etc. to which one is morally entitled. [4] I think this is a fairly straightforward and common-sense way of understanding the word.
I would add that I took time in my overview to clarify, in part, my understanding of human rights and how such rights are subject to certain limitations. Notice that I am referring to human rights as things we hold in the abstract (prima facie) and which may or may not be applied to certain circumstances based on the balancing calculations at play. As I wrote earlier: "Rather, we are saying that all persons have this right prima facie, but that whether they can exercise it in any given circumstance is dependent on the balancing act that must take place to resolve competing rights claims."
I would conclude by strongly urging my opponent to engage with my actual advocacy, rather than making semantic arguments regarding prior questions, and by asking voters for a Pro vote. Thank you. I await my opponent's next posting.
III. Sources
Con
#4
Let's jump in.
You said:
Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof,
This is simply false. My case against you is the claim that the is/ought distinction necessarily implies that one cannot derive an ought statement from and is statement, you've admitted it yourself. What you're really trying to say is that I'm not arguing from the position that you think I should be arguing from (migration ought not be a right) This is fallacious.
If I have a jar of gumballs and you claim that there are an even number of gumballs and I say I don't believe you, that is not the same as saying that there is an odd number of gumballs. I am saying that I don't believe your claim. Now I am still taking on a burden of proof. But the difference is that I'm not taking on the burden of the claim that you think I ought to take on and since is can't imply ought, that means that you can't tell me I'm not accepting the BOP. My claim is that you can't derive ought from is and I have met my burden of proof by citing Hume's guillotine and giving a detailed example.
runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden.
Let me post what was said in the description so that it's clear what my opponent is talking about.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
I want to be clear that I did not challenge any assumptions made in the resolution. I did not try to invalidate any definitions nor did I violate any of the contingencies that my opponent put forward, no matter how arbitrary they may or may not be. The only thing I did was ask for clarification of my opponent's definitions in order for us to have a better and more honest discussion.
Nowhere in the description at all does it say that part of the resolution was for me to take the "ought not" position here. Anybody who doesn't believe me can read the entire description and prove demonstrably that I'm correct. Just to make it official, here's the source.
Con does not establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all. His points seem almost entirely off-topic.
I will address how you're doing this in a moment, but I would like to point out that you're kind of missing the point here. The whole point of the is/ought distinction is that we have no way to derive an ought statement at all. That's why I agreed with some of your points. If you want to descriptively tell me that X is a human right and people want X to be a human right and it's good for survival to make X a human right. I would agree with all of that.
But the topic is as you put in the description:
"--Topic--
Transnational migration ought to be a human right."
That ought in your sentence is my problem with the argument, it's the reason for my claim and it's where my BOP lies. I want to be clear on this again. I am not trying to refute the definition of ought that you gave at all. What I'm saying is that ought does not logically follow unless you have another ought which leads to an infinite regress unless you have an ought that is not justified by anything at all, which makes it an axiom, which makes it unjustified. This is supported by our collective studies of epistemology as a species.
Now as for how you're falsely deriving ought, let's jump in.
Suppose, however, that my family prevents me from leaving. They catch me at the fence and say: "You were born here on this farm, and so you must remain here for life." There is obviously something morally wrong about this situation, namely, that I have been unjustly imprisoned. Even if I am free to wander about the farm itself, the fact that I am never allowed to leave means that I am a captive of this place, a prisoner unable to leave, denied--without just cause--the liberty to pursue my own dreams and passions.
This argument you made is absolutely loaded with is statements. "They catch me at the fence" that's an is statement. You're saying "they are catching me at the fence" It's descriptive. You're describing all of the things that are keeping you from leaving and then saying that you ought to be able to leave. Honestly, I could do this with any of your arguments because this is why the is/ought distinction is taken so seriously in philosophy. There's no way around it. You would need an ought statement to support your topic and that ought statement would need another ought statement which would need another ought statement, which would need another ought statemnet, which would need another ought statement. etc. etc. etc. etc. all the way to infinity.
Con's argument is confusingly phrased and incredibly vague. It is not actually clear what he is arguing and what his advocacy is. This not only creates an unfair burden for me, in that I now have to try to make sense out of a word miasma, but it also means judges should default to my case as it is the only one with a definable position.
This is a tad disingenuous. My arguments were not vague nor was it unclear what I was positing. The is/ought problem is well known. It's not like I'm speaking Chinese and just because the language might be confusing to you doesn't me it's confusing. That's subjective to the person reading it. I'm using common philosophical language, so if you don't understand my position, maybe it's because you don't talk that way. Would that be my fault? Are you going to say that I [ought] to use your language?
The Is/Ought problem is not an obstacle for my case
That's a nice claim. Where's your evidence. Do you really expect me to believe that every philosopher in history couldn't overcome this obstacle, but somehow, it's nothing for you? Am I to also believe that your position is so virtuous that you can just state it to be the case without evidence? You're making the positive claim that it's not a problem. Now I'm asking you to justify it with evidence instead of attacking me with false claims about my conduct. Honestly, you've spent more or you rebuttal debating my conduct than my arguments. You talked about an unfair burden of proof because I'm not explaining. Where is your explanation to my rebuttals? There is none. You're just attacking my conduct when I'm doing a great job of following your arbitrary rules mostly out of good faith that you might drop this tactical BS and engage me in a way so that we can learn something today.
Given that it will be necessary to clear up the confusion on this issue, "morality" is defined variously as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," "conformity to ideals of right human conduct," and "set of standards for good or bad behavior." [1-3] What is important in each of these definitions that morality is composed of a set of principles, ideals, or standards which inform the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the conduct being assessed.
I agree that morality derives from certain principles. If you're telling me descriptively that "people abide by these X standards for their morality" I would 100% agree with you. However, once you cross that prescriptive threshold and say "therefore you ought to do those things" That is where Hume's guillotine chops your head off. You must understand that this is a semantic argument. Ontologically, I agree with you on every prong. But semantically, your language does not logically follow. You can never get past a practical appeal with this argument. There must be an axiom involved for your argument and it will not be justified unless it's intrinsic. these are all simply facts.
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done
I just want to point out that I addressed this in my opening even though you falsely claim that I'm not presenting arguments. "if" statements, are merely repackaged "is" statements and they don't logically follow either. The distinction here is more subtle, But I'll show you because I like having a BOP ;)
You: If you want to live (principle) then you ought to keep yourself alive (imperative) {Looks solid at first glance, but just wait.}
Me: Why should I care about being alive?
You: Because if you want to, then you're going to.
Me: Why should I care if I'm going keep myself alive?
You: Because you want to (is statement)
Me: Why should I care if you want to?
You: Because if you want to then you're going to.
Me: That doesn't mean that I should want to. It only means that I'm going to (and the infinite regress continues)
The bottom line here is that having a principle can indeed tell you what the objectively best outcome would be by your standard. The problem is that you can't say that they ought to follow the standard even if they want to because you can't say that they ought to want to follow it or want the outcome or anything of the sort.
I'm running out on my word limit so if there was something key that I missed, just let me know and I'll address it in later rounds.
I hope we can put aside the accusations about conduct and really talk about this. You might find I'm being as illogical as you think I am. Our disagreement is actually small in my opinion.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thanks to Con for his reply. I will now refute his remarks.
----------------
I. Burdens
As I said last round, Con does not offer a case himself, and given an equal burden of proof, he cannot successfully negate unless he either (1) runs a Kritik or (2) proves that migration ought not be a human right. Since Kritiks are disallowed by the rules, either Con has broken the rules or he hasn't made any argument that could meet his burden. Let's explore this claim in a bit more depth, since Con seems to be missing the point.
Con misunderstands how equal burdens function in a debate. My burden, as Pro, is to prove the resolution true within the context of the debate via a preponderance of the evidence and argumentation. The equal counterpart to that is to prove the resolution false within the context of the debate via a preponderance of the evidence and argumentation.
Con's arguments are not attempting to prove the resolution false, but are rather focused solely on preventing me from proving it true (namely, by suggesting my approach is fallacious due to the Is/Ought issue). Negating Pro's case is not the same as negating the resolution. At best, if my case is negated, we have to default to a tied debate, since Con has not given voters any reason to believe the resolution to be false. In such a scenario, neither Pro nor Con would have met their burden.
Alternatively, Con is suggesting that the resolution is unanswerable given that, to quote Con directly, "every philosopher in history couldn't overcome this [Is/Ought] obstacle." Con is literally saying that because there is an "ought" in the topic, we cannot hope to answer it. This is a Kritik, as the resolution assumes its own answerability. Debate resolutions have to assume answerability because their goal is to create fair conditions for discursive victory--these are not conditions which can exist without assuming that both debaters can answer the topic.
Therefore, Con is either running a Kritik or failing to meet his burden of proof in this debate. Neither is a winning strategy for Con.
II. The Is/Ought Problem
The Is/Ought Problem is not an obstacle for my case. I devoted five paragraphs of text last round to explaining why it is not an obstacle, yet Con has not taken the time to address the substance of the argument I presented. Instead he chose to respond to a hodgepodge of quotations selected seemingly at random and which are only tangentially related to my core argument. Let me therefore restate the primary argument I made last round, which has so far gone unrefuted:
If morality is defined in this way, it seems that it is actually the case that morality is a collection of principles and rules which can be applied to situations to determine what "ought" to be done. Take the case of utilitarianism, which argues that the moral precept is the maximization of happiness. This precept functions axiomatically. So, if as a utilitarian I say that "we ought to do X because it is going to save net lives," I do not run into the Is/Ought problem. If we are already defining the promotion of happiness as a moral precept axiomatically (and thus not derivately, as from a material fact), there is no dilemma. The axiomatic nature of the precept also prevents infinite regress. This is one example of how material facts are relevant to morality, and how this can be the case without running into the Is/Ought problem.Unless Con is planning to argue that values running the gamut from life to liberty to safety to community should not be included in such an axiomatic scheme, then it is hard to see how his argument here makes any sense. At the heart of it, our moral intuitions clearly guide us to the notion that these values should be included in such a scheme, which creates a strong presumption against any argument for their dis-inclusion which Con might attempt to make.Therefore, if we include as axiomatic those values and principles I name in my case, then we "ought" to act in ways which will uphold and respect them.
In other words, defining morality as an axiomatic scheme, where certain values and ideas are axiomatically treated as moral, solves the Is/Ought problem and avoids infinite regress, including the infinite regress implied by if/then statements. So, if we axiomatically include such things as freedom of movement and life in our moral scheme, then it is moral that we should promote these things. Again, this isn't ground-breaking, and it obviates Con's quarrel with my case altogether.
In fact, Con concedes the point when he writes, "I agree that morality derives from certain principles." If we are deriving morality from principles, we are not deriving it from material fact, ergo, there is no Is/Ought problem.
Con does offer one interesting objection, though still fallacious, which relates to the justification of axioms. His objection is:
There must be an axiom involved for your argument and it will not be justified unless it's intrinsic...The problem is that you can't say that they ought to follow the standard even if they want to because you can't say that they ought to want to follow it or want the outcome or anything of the sort.
There are two problems with this logic. Firstly, if a value is treated as an axiom, by definition it requires no justification. Secondly, an axiom can be justified by our moral intuitions, which was an argument that I presented last round and which Con failed to engage with at all. Just as we have eyes to see the world around us, we have a "sense" of morality which allows us to define, albeit loosely, its contours. This does not run afoul of the Is/Ought problem because it is a moral sense, not a material one.
III. My Case
Con continues to fail to establish or make clear how I am deriving an "ought" from an "is," and so it is not at all clear how the majority of his arguments relate to anything at all or how they are successfully rebutting my case.
Con nit-picks at the sentence level, pointing to snippets such as "They catch me at the fence" to make his point. Con's tactic here fails to consider my case in context, and that is where Con errs. In context, it is clear that I am appealing to moral principles such as free association, free movement, and respect for life to justify my positions. Since I am ultimately appeal to values and principles, not to material facts, to derive ought statements, my case does not run into the Is/Ought problem.
And remember, material facts can be relevant without being derivative sources of moral precepts. As long as I am not deriving my values from material facts, I can consider those facts in the application of prior values.
Thus, I will conclude by once more asking the voters for their vote. Thank you. I await my opponent's next posting.
Con
#6
I apologize, I was under the impression that this would be an honest discussion. That was my fault for making assumptions.
As I stated, I did not challenge any assumptions made in the description. You're not arguing for you case, you're just using your description as a tool to win your debate. How frivolous of you. I've already made my case and you simply hand wave it off saying it's not a problem.
I have no more to say on the topic. I rest my case for the remainder of the debate unless you want to argue honestly.
In the mean time, I'm off to find some honest debaters.
Round 4
Pro
#7
My opponent wanted an honest discussion and got an honest discussion. The irony here is that Con, rather than having a substantive debate about the actual subject of migration, instead chose to present a nit-picking and semantic argument which obviously ran counter to the spirit of the debate.
I engaged extensively with the arguments Con provided, explaining precisely why they were flawed. Con chose to ignore those arguments, failing to address my points on axiomatic systems and moral intuitions.
Since Con has dropped all of my key arguments, please extend them as dropped. Con cannot not now reply to them without making new arguments. Please vote Pro. Thank you to Con for the debate, such as it was, and to the voters for reading and voting.
Con
#8
My opponent is so contrarian that he has completely missed the points of my arguments. This is why he keeps saying that I haven't made any. I made a semantic argument, which is a valid form of argument. My argument stems from a philosophy problem that directly applies to his proposition. He has acknowledged the is/ought problem while committing a special pleading fallacy to dodge them. There is nothing honest about this. If my opponent wanted to talk about the subject at hand, all he had to do was admit what every other philosopher admits and then we could have discussed the ways in which someone would ground their morality of migration.
My opponent says that he makes no is statements in his argument. This is Ludacris. All arguments are made up of is statements. There is no way around this. I think the real issue here is that my opponent does not understand the is/ought distinction as well as he claims.
My opponent says I challenged assumptions made in the topic. This is not true. I accepted all definitions of the argument as well as I accept the topic for what it was. This is the dirty trick that my opponent uses to attempt to win this debate. He conflates challenging the topic with challenging assumptions made in the topic. His strategy is simple. In his mind, anybody who makes a claim against his topic is challenging it's assumptions, so he wins automatically.
I hope your votes keep you warm at night. Because your thoughts won't.
You can win as many debates as you want. In the end, I win at life because I'm not petty enough to be dishonest in my arguments. I'll state the truth even if it loses me 1,000 debates and you can just keep kissing the respective behinds of the voters like the pseudo politician that you are.
Also, not, that it matters since I'll never willingly debate you again, but don't rush me to post a closing statement next time you jerk. I was at work making money for my children and I will take as long as I damn well please.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con’s case is as follows. In order for Pro to prove that migration “ought” to be a human right, they need to justify a particular normative ethical theory. The problem is that justifying normative ethical theories is impossible because it either (1) runs into an infinite regress of justifications or (2) attempts to ground itself in real-world facts. The first of these is a problem, according to Con, because any starting point is necessarily a bare assertion. The second of these is a problem since that would be committing a naturalistic fallacy -- the fact that something is the case doesn’t mean it ought to be the case. The problem for Con, though, is that this would be a post-fiat kritik. It’s a classic example of what formal debaters often call a “moral skep” argument -- it seems to argue in favor of either moral non-cognitivism or error theory, which challenges the resolution’s assumption that an “ought” is coherent. Rule 6 forbids that. Given that this debate operates under the assumption that moral realism is true, the question is: given moral realism, should migration be a human right? Pro offers two substantive reasons why it should be -- one is the argument that there is an individual right to the freedom of movement that shouldn’t be constrained by the random luck that determines where you are born and the other is the notion that humanity functions as a moral community, and movement within moral communities holds moral significance. Apart from the kritik, Con doesn’t attack these two claims. I understand Con’s frustration, but it’s their job to pay close attention to the rules. Thus, I vote Pro.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
"Right to leave"; Pro's argument in support of this right is strong, but Pro's connection of this to the resolution is weak. Pro's argument that migration within a community should be permitted is strong, but Pro's case for a human community is weak.
Con's hyper-technical is/ought approach to the resolution is not convincing. The resolution isn't ambiguous. Viewing this most charitably, it appears to be an attack on the lack of an objective, logical basis for morals. Con didn't attack the weaknesses of Pro's case. Con didn't make much of a case of his own.
These problems are largely pointed out by Pro within the following round. Con double's down on his is/ought argument, but I must reject this argument for the reasons Pro provided; It's unappealing due to being too technical and overly semantic. Con follows by making accusations of bad faith debating, none of which are true. Con finishes off with more accusations and sticking to the is/ought line of reasoning. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to have been a substantive debate on this topic.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con literally concedes that non-migrating area-traps are the equivalent of prison in terms of human rights, at least to some degree and due specifically to not being able to leave. The Kritik that it isn't a human right but ought to be was kind of lost on me anyway since the entirety of expanding upon it became instead about the banning of Kritiks in debates and a couple of other rules like evenly shared BoP and vaguely 'no trolling'. In fact you could say Con's later Rounds were the definition of trolling as it became about making Pro feel shit for being a coward. Being a coward isn't being a troll, it takes a troll to expose a coward usually but that's how life goes. Don't overplay your hand against a coward when the coward is very willing to be aggressive when the time is right. This is poker strategy vs chess strategy, Con needs to learn not to mess with someone like bsh1 who understand how to use the opponent's aggression against them.
It's fine that you did this honestly, I agree with Con outside of this debate about bsh1 but the fact is you step into the arena you gotta respect the rules. You can't eye gouge and then say 'well in a real fight I can do that to you, coward!'
Tbh, I back bsh1 up on this; rules in the description are sacred to me (actually a lot more so than they are to bsh1, as evident by some cases of vote-modding). You agree to the description, if you lost then admit it and concede with grace.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
1.) Kritiks are prevented by the rules. An assumption Inherent in the resolution, is that the resolution is answerable (as outlined by pro), con clearly challenges this assumption and therefore is guilty of a kritik. As this was cons whole argument - pros argument is not addressed and is dropped. Pro wins
2.) I am and have been willing to ignore rules if one side can argue why I should not accept the rules, that they are unfair or unreasonable. Pro points out the rule is there to keep the debate as a discussion on the merits of a plan - not a crappy nitpicking logic fest unrelated to the resolution. Con does not clearly elaborate on any harm that would be imposed for the rule. Rules upheld. Kritik rejected. Pros points dropped. Pro wins
3.) Cons case that moral imperatives are not possible and so the resolution is unanswerable, appears to be mostly dealt with as a value statement. That if one presupposes a particularly moral framework that guides moral decisions, then oughts are possible. Pro elaborates on this in Round 2. Con doesn’t seem to have much of an answer to why I shouldn’t accept this other than to object to the notion of an axiomatic value (pro covered in R3). Kritik rejected. Pros points dropped. Pro wins
4.) Even If I accept all that, is/ought are accepted problems and normally aren’t a part of policy debate. For me to accept the kritik even if I waive the three issues above, con imo has to show a clear harm of accepting this assumption as is. If pro can’t show why there is a harm in accepting the resolution - I can’t see any practical or meaningful reason I should accept the premise. Kritik rejected - pros arguments dropped. Pro wins
5.) even if I ignore the above, accepting the resolution in my view offers no negation of the resolution. As the BoP is evenly shared in the rules. Even if I reject everything pro said, and accept everything con said. It’s still a tie.
Given the above, pro had me at point one, and thus arguments go to pro.
Conduct. Not only was con engaging in a ridiculous nitpicking argument outside both the intent and normal practice of a debate, he then launched into an inherently anti social debate approach. This was rounded up with his 4th and 5th round:
“I apologize, I was under the impression that this would be an honest discussion. That was my fault for making assumptions.”
“How frivolous of you. I've already made my case and you simply hand wave it off saying it's not a problem. “
“I hope your votes keep you warm at night. Because your thoughts won't. “
Cons behaviour deteriorated into the petulant and obtuse. Pro patiently responded, did not call names, or flip any tables, despite the degree of apparent provocation.
Cons behaviour was egregious. He didn’t appear to debate in good faith on the clear intent of the topic, he resorted to petulance and sarcasm that was clearly both objectionable to any reasonable person and showed a profound lack of respect for his opponent.
This Conduct was extremely disrespectful and would clearly warrant a conduct violation if it was allowed, but also severe enough and a loss on these grounds alone.
As a result, pro wins here in 5 different ways.
I’m impressed by the Quality/speed ratio
Lol. Glad you're enjoying the debate.
I did not say your plan was biased, I said your "your characterization of the would-be immigrant" was. I don't know what your plan is.
As for your fears about immigrants, they read as deeply paranoid and absurd.
Gotcha
"You might find I'm being as illogical as you think I am."
Meant to say "I'm not being"
I’m gonna have a ball judging this
What typo? I’m going crazy trying to find it
I'm sincerely sorry that I couldn't address the end of your R2. I'll try to come back to it in the next round. So don't assume I'm not going to address it.
Epic typo at the end of my R2. You'll notice it right away. I apologize in advance for the finger slip.
You call my immigration plan biased, but we both have bias. Bias ideally does not affect one's ability to persuade.
If you want to immigrate to a country, you should do it legally, otherwise with open borders, a bunch of pro-big government immigrants would eliminate the freedom that America means. They would turn America into a left wing 3rd world country that they left. If they don't assimilate, they lead to separatist movements, as history has confirmed.
"it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties."
I don't know what shrinking their duties means.
"I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries."
So you advocate for open borders? It's fine, I know someone who wants open borders, I wouldn't call it a "straw man" position since there are arguments for it.
I think your characterization of the would-be immigrant is already ideologically loaded and biased.
Your argument about the asylum-seeker is also problematic, as it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties.
I am not going to talk about what I am arguing in the debate, as that may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. What I will say is that, personally, open borders are aspirational and inadvisable at this point, though I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries.
Are you advocating for open borders? Lets say you were Mexican and you wanted to come to the USA. You don't know any English, you are unwilling to learn, you are willing to work but can't since you don't know English and you merely see the USA as a place for you to receive welfare checks. You don't accept American values. Should you be allowed in the US? No. You would be a burden to society. If there were tens of millions like you in the country (there are) then it could be the grounds for a separatist movement in the near future.
Now lets say you were an asylum seeker from Mexico, everything else above is true about you. You were fleeing for your life. This still isn't an excuse to be in the US because there are other countries that you can go to. You can go to Spain for example. They have a crime rate that is lower then the US and if you are coming for a better life, that has to be earned by going through the legal process.
Out of curiosity, are you advocating for open borders?
Posted.
Also my 500th comment...
Posted.
It's not a rule in every debate you've ever seen. I can disprove that due to the fact that you've seen my debates and I don't abide that standard. As far as I know, it's not an official rule of Dbart (correct me if I'm wrong) and the only time I've ever seen it come up is as a caveat that one side makes.
I think caveats are fine within the confines of a debate. But making a caveat on how the debaters make their arguments is not in the spirit in debate and I've never even heard of this outside of Dbart.
It does matter when you use an argument. If you make a brand new argument when the other add can’t reply, it’s not possible for any voter to assess the argument as both sides haven’t discussed the point or had a chance to refute.
How on you’ve taken that to mean I need to read minds in order to assess one the argument hasn’t been discussed by both sides - but trying to work out how an argument fits into both sides of an argument when only raised by one side is very much problematic - which is why literally this is an expected rule in pretty much every debate I have ever seen.
Implicitly implies? Do you really believe that? You're now saying that you can read minds. If the debater has a good argument, they should use it, It doesn't matter when they use it. The instigator had X amount rounds to cover all relevant points, if they let one slip by, it's their fault. If the point is irrelevant, then the voter will not be able to find logical entailment and the argument will fail on it's own. The caveat is both unnecessary and flies in the face of honest debating.
Have it your way.
I am not interested in debating these rules with you, tbh. By accepting the debate, you accepted those rules. If you objected to them, then you should not have accepted. Plus, Ram said almost everything I would've said anyway, lol.
If you had already had rounds to discuss the claim - then this would be a point - provided it stems directly from the claim.
If you were raising a new point in defense or against the resolution - unrelated to specific individual claims - that’s a new argument.
Other arguments have had time to be used, rebutted, refuted and defended: so as a tabula rasa voter you have enough information to weigh a decision on arguments. For a new argument in final round, you haven’t heard from both sides and haven’t had time to hear both sides points, so you can either ignore the point (as Bsh - and literally everyone else agrees), or you can weigh the point - as it’s impossible to weigh the point in isolation of other arguments without bringing in external factors if you’ve only heard one side - accepting last round arguments implicitly implies you want judges to insert their personal opinion of your argument.
If you want to separate yourself from the voter than fine. I'll ask you this.
Do you think the debaters should argue non tabula rasa? Because if you're saying that you're allowed to develop preconceived notions about how your opponent is allowed to make their arguments, then you're advocating for non tabula rasa.
Thanks for setting the pins up for me. Now let me show you why your point is arbitrary.
Bsh1: I make this claim.
Me: Your claim is wrong because bsh1 eats babies.
that was just a development and a point instead of an argument by your standards. Your standards are arbitrary and I can say whatever I want in a specific way in order to make it a point. So the distinction is arbitrary because it did not change the context or subject matter, but rather forced me to add an arbitrary descriptor on the end stating that it "developed" from the previous argument. You could come back and say that it has to "logically follow" but that would be dubious saying that a particular argument doesn't logically follow flies in the face of tabula rasa.
I don't understand. How would voting on an argument made in the last round require a preconceived notion? That's not what I said at all. You're implying that I want the voter to invent a rebuttal in their head to the new argument. I made this clear that this was not the case. What I said is that if the instigator had covered all relevant points, then there would be no relevant point that the contender could make that wouldn't have already been addressed by the instigator. Therefore, the voter can vote in a tabula rasa system because they can use the prior rebuttal that the instigator already made in their RFD to show that it was not there logic that refuted it.
“What's the difference between a point and an argument? What is a development?”
This is a development - the progression of an argument into new information of challenge
“You're just making arbitrary distinctions.”
This is a new point. A corollary statement or thesis based on an extension of the previous argument thread.
“Bsh eats babies”
This is a new argument.
What's the difference between a point and an argument? What is a development? You're just making arbitrary distinctions.
It's clear to me that you do not understand what "no new argument" means, and that is leading to much of your confusion. Not all new points are new arguments. As I said: "New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments."
It implies non-tabula rasa judging because only that kind of judging would allow a judge to vote on arguments which were not up for debate (as new arguments in the last round are).
Obviously, I am not a voter in this debate, so it is a false equivalency to compare me with a potential voter.
Also, wouldn't your argument be non tabula rasa because you're the one starting off with preconceived notion about how one should argue with your arbitrary limitation.
How does my argument imply non tabula rasa? I don't see how that follows.
Okay then, here's my question, what is the point of rebutting an argument if you can't use a new argument? rebutting with an old argument MAY be an option, but at some point no matter who stops using new information, there will always be a round with possible new arguments, followed by an argument that rebuts that argument without being able to use new arguments. This is not balanced because a rebuttal to a new argument is quite often a new argument. This is why I say it's an infinite regress.
It applies to BOTH debaters final rounds. And, let me repeat: New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments.
Your argument rests on the presumption of non-tabula rasa judging. Since judging should be tabula rasa, your argument holds no weight.
It's funny that you make the race car reference, because that's exactly what your caveat does. The instigator gets to bring up new arguments all throughout the debate but the contender has do bring up new arguments for one less round. So who's standard is really the cheap one?
You didn't seem to address my critique. Is it not true that if your argument was sound that the opponent would not be able to bring up a new argument that is actually relevant?
I don't think you know what "no new argument" means. It does not mean "no" arguments; that is you can defend and explain and add on existing points up to a point. But if we have gone the entire debate without you making argument X, it would be categorically unfair for you to talk about X in the last speech. It's really a commonsense type judgement.
Believe me, debaters throughout the US have been using that rule for decades, and we have not infinitely regressed.
Cheap tricks are "cheap" because they unfairly benefit one side. If you started one racer a mile behind the other, the contest is not a fair one, and thus not worth having. So yes, there are cheap tricks--they are perhaps better known as cheating.
If there's no new arguments in the last round, then the last round is pointless and the round before it becomes the last round too.
Since that new round is the last round, that means they can't bring up new points in that either, because the person in the final round can't rebut them without bringing up new points. So that one is useless too.
So then the round before becomes last, can't bring up anything new there either since the following two rounds can't bring up new arguments.
Infinite regress. It's the same as telling somebody they can't button mash in mortal combat. I would urge you to rethink your position on this if you care about honest debating.
There is no such thing as a cheap trick. The real trick is telling somebody how they're allowed to argue.
The fact is that if one's argument is complete in it's analysis, then there is no point the opponent can bring up to shake their structure.
If the opponent brings up an argument that is a non sequitur, they will just be hanging themselves.
That's like a chess player telling me I can't use a fork tactic because it's a "cheap trick"
Lol
Also, people should use all this passion and channel it into something for the site...like commenting on this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1754
It's a cheap trick, not good tactics. Good tactics are innovative ways to win fairly, not ways to short-circuit the argumentative process entirely.
Lol. Everyone should chill out. I haven't even presented my case yet and people are freaking out about what I am or am not going to argue. Wait and see, and may the force be with us.
The modern world has a wonderful tool called “Google” where you can “search” people places and things. Alternatively, there is also a magic tool called a “scroll bar” which you can used to reveal hidden texts at the bottom of a page!
If you had done this, instead of apparently assuming your own personal interpretation is correct for no reason, at the bottom of the article, you could have read:
“Rutger Bregman is the author of Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek”
So he absolutely does advocate for those things.
The more utterly absurd question you ask : is why does a newspaper publish opinion peices if it doesn’t support them. Do you know how newspapers work? Are you assuming they closely vet their opinion peices for ideological purity? While this maybe true of many ultraright wing news outlets that you may follow - but the majority of online news outlets I’ve read share conflicting ideas and opinion happily in order to reflect the various types of debate that are at the political core. This is no different - and this guy probably got a bit of exposure due to his outburst at Davis.
I strongly suspect you have a massively distorted idea at how this sort of media works, just as you have a vastly distorted understanding of the lefts posiions on open borders.
How do you know the author advocates for a 15 hour work week? If he did, how could a mainstream organization allow him to preach?
The author advocates for 15 hour working weeks, and open borders.
He is a fringe figure, and his position is a fringe position. This is after you confused a news organization publishing an opinion peice by a fringe figure with that organization supporting that position.
Open borders are a fringe position - not ostensibly held by any major left wing organizarions or figures, to any meaningful degree. It’s just typical right wing misrepresentation and mischaracterization.
The author is not an extremist.
ooof.
I got my lawn chair
No, Fortune doesn’t support open borders. Newspapers and sites frequently allow contrasting opinion pieces to be written and publish by various groups. This is just an opinion price by why appears to be a fringe group that was published by fortune.
Okay, so what if your link had someone that wants open borders? What does that have to do with us? Do we want open borders?
You might be confused that I accepted this after previous comments. After reading your description. I have concluded that I disagree with your argument on a semantic level. I await your opening.
http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/ supports open borders, and they're not that far left.
I find it strange that when somebody wants a vetting process, that you automatically equate it with wanting open borders. I don't know too many people who want open borders. This is a strawman.