@ninadabit Thanks for that nina :)
@matthewhidalgo Thanks for that Matt :)
This was a tough one but the judges have spoken!@citizenthom Congrats for advancing to the next round!@liamm Hard luck on this one but great job. Hope to see you at November's tournament:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
@liamm See you in December one way or another.
@citizenthom You too! I look forward to seeing more of your debates :)))
Good debate @citizenthom :)
Not to toot my own horn (but certainly to toot my opponent's): if you don't enjoy that debate, I don't think Qallout is for you. Thanks @liamm, and one way or another, see you in December!
@citizenthom Well said! haha
@citizenthom @liamm I can't wait to watch
@citizenthom Indeed, just a few minutes in and its already nice and juicy. Good stuff gents.
This was a great debate. I can't really point to any improvements in how it was conducted.Ultimately I think Con's position was more consistent with the Libertarian stated principles. Con's active liberalism (aka taking positive action to secure negative rights) is not really in keeping with the libertarian ideal. Pro's argument are fantastic, but I didn't feel like he was really arguing from a true libertarian viewpoint. It's more like if Teddy Rosevelt were made the libertarian president.Mind you, while I have some libertarian streaks in my politics, I think the hardcore principles are just plain silly. AKA unrealistic in the face of the human condition.
@sigfried did you mean *positive* rights? PRO wasn't arguing for preserving negative rights. He was arguing for rights to birth control and other health services provided by PP.And the human condition is central to many libertarians. The idea is that humans are flawed, and thus they are not morally equiped to handle the power government gives them.
@jrdncttr Well, he mentioned the right to be free of the invasion of a fetus. That would be a negative right of sorts. But yes, the birth control is a positive right of sorts.Mind you, I find the way we talk about rights to often be a big jumble of somewhat arbitrary distinctions. I think rights are ultimately simply legal expressions of desires.
@sigfried I tend to think rights as "legal expressions of desires" is arbitrary because those can be anything and are subject to the whims of a legislative body or voting population. I believe basically all rights stem from property rights and thus aren't arbitrary. The only exceptions would be "the right to an attorney", which I see more of as a requirement on government rather than a right (for example, you aren't entitled to an attorney just for breathing, but if the government charges you with something, they are required to provide you an attorney if you can't afford one). But I agree the word "right" is thrown around most of the time in an arbitrary way.
Took you forever to make this valid argument at 22 min @citizenthomGame over
@jameson14 I was thinking the same thing..glad he finally got to it.
I expected the debate to be one of property rights(bodily autonomy) vs non-aggression(killing a fetus), both of which are central to libertarian philosophy, which is what makes this topic so interesting in this context. PRO, however, took a very surprising approach, but CON adapted very well to answering it. I think PRO's argument was fundamentally flawed, in that it did not represent libertarianism. Besides his initial definition (which I think was inadequate without the mention of the NAP or property rights), his arguments and rebuttals were completely void of libertarian principles besides a few seconds at the 14 minute mark. I understand that he was trying to stick to the topic as it was worded, but you can't ignore the actual position while talking about the movement behind it.The major problem with PRO's argument is that it focused on "rights" that don't exist in libertarian philosophy. He even went as far to say that "all libertarians" agree on rights like birth control, and that they are "uncontroversial". This simply is not true. Libertarianism doesn't even recogize positive rights, much less a "right" to birth control. His argument is further undermined by the claim that these "rights" (services actually) will disappear without government funds. Libertarians are huge proponents of the free market. They believe that not only will the free market provide services, but that it will provide services much better and more effectively without government involvement. And this is certainly true with PP which enjoys a massive level of support.As a libertarian that has flip flopped on the abortion issue more than once, I wasn't convinced at all of pro's claim and I think CON did an excellent job pointing out it's problems (like the government funding) from a libertarian pov. For those reasons, i voted CON.
CON has a better argument - logic and everything. OTHER hand...especially at the end - PRO shows almost a religious fervor in the insistence the libertarians (and everyone else) should support the religious rite of abortion. By PROs logic...plenty of big government programs can be 'mandated'...and should (by his logic) ALSO be supported by libertarians. He keeps saying 'libertarian'...but I don't think he really understands what that word means.
To me this was a one sided debate, not because one side was a way better debater, but because only one side appealed to libertarians.
@sigfried @mvineyard @jrdncttrI appreciate your comments, but I think they're unfounded. The motion as it reads it 'liberatarians should support the pro-choice movement'.The general form of this motion is: 'that group x should take action y'.The motion is /not/ 'that group x should BELEIEVE cause y'. If QallOut motion setters wanted a debate about the libertarian position on abortion, that should have been the motion that they set. They did not.At numerous points in the debate both of us correctly identify the 50/50 split of the position on this issue, and the legitimacy of both positions. That identifies we need another metric uponwhich to make out decision.I understand Libertarians in general are hyper-principled, what I identify in the debate which I think you have all missed, is that they may SAY this, but they do not ACT it.E.g1. they say they dont want taxes, but they still pay themE.g2. they say they dont wan't government subsidies, but they still use government servicesThis implies they have already made the triage decision making calculus I outline in my case.
@liamm Yes, they pay taxes because they are required too, and the government is, by definition, a monopoly. So they have to use government services. Being a law abiding citizen says nothing about what someone ought to support. The motion was addressed to libertarians so at the end of the day, you will have to appeal to them. And positive "rights" and government subsidies do not appeal to libertarians and have no place in libertarianism as a philosophy. It's not that libertarians are "hyper-principled", it's just that, unlike other parties, they have a consistent set of principles that guide their morality and politics and you didn't appeal to any those principles in your argument.
@jrdncttr As citizen also concedes in the debate these 'positive rights' are things that they support. E.g. 'no liberatarian would disagree you have the right to information abot your body'. Especially since I identify your body is your property, the non-support of prochoice, has the very likely political outcome that other people dot not get the right to information about their body, and it is likely that an agression of spreading HIV will occur in the absence of that information.Further, liberatarians access government services, e.g. Medicare in australia, and presumably the american variant, even when they do not HAVE to access those services. This indicates they are pragmatic in their beliefs.Importantly, the question of the correct libertarian position on abortion is irrelavent in this debate, we identify its 50/50 and BOTH CONCEDE that both positions are legitimate, therefore we need somehting ELSE other than the principles applied to the belief but the principles applied to the ACTION, as i say in the debate.
@liamm But that's the whole point of debate. To sway people towards your position. It doesn't matter if it's 50/50. Make it 60/40 for your position then. You don't need another metric. Having said that, it wasn't your approach that was the problem, it was your support for it (government subsidies and the notion of positive rights). /*E.g. 'no liberatarian would disagree you have the right to information abot your body'*/I'm a libertarian and I disagree with this. You don't have a right to information about your body. You have to right to freely seek information about your body, but nobody should be coerced into giving you such information or funding the service that gives you that information. /*and it is likely that an agression of spreading HIV will occur in the absence of that information.*/You are mixing up the funding of a service and that service itself. Not only would PP continue to offer services in the absence of coerced payments, but several other organizations would and do give such information. And using government services does not mean they are pragmatic in their beliefs, it means they are pragmatic in their actions. In fact, you can use a service and oppose the same service simultaneously without any cognitive dissonance. Your argument would have been fine as a general argument, but you used all the un-libertarian things the movement does to convince libertarians to support the movement and that was counterproductive to your case.
@jrdncttr so the end of your comment just simply agrees with me, that they are ‘pragmatic in their actions not their beleifs’ This is a debate about actions (see my first comment). And nothing that actions have consequences I provide reasons to believe why this action would be the most advantageous. Further, when I said ‘no libertarian disagree with this’, I was quoting the Con speaker. Debates have to operate on a set of agreed rules, those rules may be different from reality (which ought be avoided), but he and I obviously agreed on those rules - and that informs the rest of the arguments. Concessions and observations made in debates change the burden landscape of the debate. Like I said many many times in the debate, there are unlivertarian things on both sides, I’m saying that the world is imperfect and in that unavoidable TRADE OFF, mine has more libertarian and less anti-libertarian. Also, as I ask said and was I responded too, these services do not necessarily have to have government funding. But the pro-life/pro-choice movements are not arguing over funding they’re arguing over legitimate access to those services AT ALL.
@liamm Are they 50/50 in a manner of conscience or in a matter of principle? Abortion is both a moral question and a legal question. A libertarian could believe that abortion is wrong morally, but still, say that the government has no say in regulating it. And he could say that contraception is a good for an individual but the state has no role in supporting it.Now if we had a third participant here, who was arguing the Libs should take a Pro-Life stand, he might argue that all Libs feel the Gov has a duty to uphold negative rights from aggression and abortion is aggression against the right of life and so there is a principle to mandate the state stop abortion.I think that actually competes better than your notion that the Libs should fight for state action supporting contraception and reproductive health services.--- Should ---Should is always open-ended for criteria. No one seemed to have explicit criteria here. Implicitly, Cons was clearly "they Should follow their core principles"You had some of that, but also something about they should be pragmatic, or... well better if you explain yourself what criteria you pivot should on.
@sigfried I was exceptionally clear in much criteria throughout the debate at multiple points I had to repeat it because it was ignored. You have a morally ambiguous issue (abortion) AND a more certain issue (reproductive rights). Both of those claims conceded by Con. My metric is then: in that’s circumstance, we ought defer to protecting and maximising other rights in the certain camp. The fact con interpreted the motion differently is not my faultb see my first post that I tagged you in for the debate theory on should vs. believe motion. I understand that’s his metric was ‘they should follow core principles’; when you have differentiate metrics those need to ben compared and weighted. I was the only one to do that my relating it to the anti-libertarian action of limiting other choices and the death that results - reading a manifesto of libertarian beliefs is not a comparison it’s an assertion.
@liamm But your point is irrelevant to the motion. Perhaps it would have worked if the motion was "Libertarians should use the services of Planned Parenthood", which I'm sure you could have made a good case for. And even though you framed it that way, support doesn't necessarily mean action. And you can't assume just because libertarians are pragmatic that they think like everybody else. The reason many or most of them don't support government subsidies or positive rights is because they *don't* think they have advantageous consequences. I don't recall CON agreeing with your notion of rights. If he did, then I'm surprised since he seemed to have a good grasp libertarian philosophy. If he conceded your view of rights then you could have gotten away with your approach of pragmatic libertarianism, but he did address how these services wouldn't necessarily disappear, and I tend to agree with that point. The argument is over funding. There has been no legislation to ban Planned Parenthood. I have never even heard a regular person suggest such a thing. There has only been legislation introduced to defund Planned Parenthood. If anybody is talking about shutting down Planned Parenthood then they are a part of an irrelevant fringe. That sentiment is certainly not a part of the mainstream.
@jrdncttr Con does concede it, I start atleast two of my speeches with identifying the concession he makes. As I said before, I’ll say it again, the motion is the support of the pro choice MOVEMENT, not to be pro-choice. And in that trade off there are imperfections once both sides. I simply cannot be clearer on this. And as o idenfited in the debate, prolife politicans do not pass legislation to ban, they pass impossible restrictions (e.g. closing down unless you have a fully formed surgical OR), and then they are subsequently closed which functions like a ban. It feels like you havent listened. Also on the continued existence of these services, I provided like three reasons why they wouldn’t, and the next they were fully ignored. I get it that con’s side my be more believable for you based on your political position (as it is mine aswell). But we have to talk about the debate that happened and the justifications provided.
@liamm I just relistened to the entire debate and I'm even more confident in my vote. CON did not agree with your notion of rights. He only said that it is good to have access to birth control and information etc., which is not the same thing as you were claiming. And I did not see you give valid reasons for these services ceasing to exist without government funding. I only heard you assert it. You did assert that if libertarians oppose subsidies for PP then they should oppose them for everything and that's absolutely true. They should oppose all subsidies. The best part of libertarianism is that it's consistent and that would be the position that is consistent with libertarian principles and consistent in general. Your argument relied on the notion that not supporting the pro-choice movement makes the pro-life movement more powerful, which simply isn't true. Supporting movements give them more power, inaction adds power to no movements. You brought up multiple times that libertarians need to compromise, but compromises are only attractive if they are better than the alternative. Here the alternative is the pro-life movement which seeks to end subsidies and restore religious liberties, which is more libertarian. As CON pointed out organizations linked to the pro-choice movement are involved with growing state power and shrinking individual liberty which contradicts libertarian goals. I think CON summarized your argument very well when he said: "Your argument from the very start undermines not the libertarian position with regards to abortion, but the libertarian position regards to liberty."And any libertarian worth their salt will choose liberty over birth control.
@liamm also the argument that we might as well fund planned parenthood since we are already taxed is flawed also given or deficit spending. If we didn't fund planned parenthood that's less money we have to borrow or print. Borrowed money requires more taxes down the road to pay off the debt and a lot more taxes if interest spikes. Printed money requires the inflation tax which decreases our buying power. So not funding planned parenthood would still be beneficial even though we've already been taxed since it's not really our taxes that pay for it anyways.
Brilliantly argued, @citizenthom. I especially liked your comparison of the libertarian view of open borders to that of the fetus entering the womb.
@qallout I cannot find the rules for the September qualifier, round 3. What do I need to do to preserve the right to invoke RJs? Or is it a best-of-three format already?
I ask because in all fairness, the comments are quite one-sided and the crowd vote is split.
@citizenthom it's best of 3 format by default.. the rules are in the 'format' button of every tournament debate
@qallout Never knew that, thanks!
[Thom did address this in his second part--should have watched more before commenting. Lol]"Government should be kept out of the matter so people of good faith can make their own decisions" is pro choice. Libertarianism, according to plank 1.5 as Thom cited, is already pro-choice. There seems to be the underlying assumption here that "pro-choice" means "pro abortion" or "support for abortion," which isn't what "pro-choice" means. "There should be no laws on the matter, and people should make their own decisions" is precisely the position that "pro-choice" was supposed to invoke. It has been corrupted to mean "pro abortion," but libertarianism remains unequivocally pro-choice. Even those libertarians who do not approve of abortion (like myself, in fact) recognize the right of individuals to choose for themselves where they stand. So in the corrupted sense where pro-choice means "pro-abortion," Thom is indisputably right; making the choice as a party to explicitly support abortion is anti-individual choice.We don't need a consensus to force one decision onto everyone. That's fundamentally antagonistic of libertarianism. Some libertarians support abortion; some don't. The key aspect of libertarianism is that people of good faith can disagree about things, and taking a vote to see what 51% of libertarians think about this or that issue, and then making it The Official Libertarian Position, is counter to libertarianism itself.
Such an intense round! Between community votes and the first judge, we have a tie so we'll bring a second judge too to make the final decision.