Princess Bubblegum

First off, this argument you have me making (which I wasn't making) is a non sequitur. That conclusion does not follow from the premise you provided. I was having trouble following the rest of what you were trying to say because of this. To be clear: I was not asserting that legislation is not desirable. The desirability of legislation or lack thereof was not at issue. My actual response to the prompt would be that underage sex violates consent laws. We have age-related consent laws because we posit that most people below a certain age are not considered capable of giving consent. It's true that some under-aged people may be physically capable of consent, but an arbitrary delineation of the law at 18 does not preclude under-aged people from consenting legally at a later point in time. The issue isn't necessarily the psychological harm but the consent. It's either there (legally) or it's not. Obviously consent exists on a spectrum, and yes, the law draws a somewhat arbitrary line on it. But that doesn't then mean that drawing arbitrary lines on law itself is acceptable. Except you're wrong. You do lose freedom. You lose the freedom to have consensual sex with your family. It's irrelevant if you can have sex with other people as alternatives. Maybe that loss of freedom is acceptable, but that is an objective loss of a consensual, physical ability by legal action nonetheless. Adultery laws make it illegal for someone to have sex with someone who is not that person's spouse: that reduces the population of potential legal sexual partners to just one, and that, too, has in the past been considered acceptable. But since the sexual revolution, that has largely changed. Sexual liberationists and their libertine followers have helped erode adultery laws and divorce laws (e.g. we now have no-fault divorce in some states) despite the "damage" those things have done to the family in the name of individual "rights." My point was the left isn't going to accept the argument of the article, e.g. of "for the benefit of the family," because if we follow that reasoning, then we should bring back adultery laws and do away with no-fault divorce. That is not an arbitrary issue, it's one of consistent principles. The point of this thread was to argue that these leftists (sexual libertationists) either do not have consistent principles and are hypocrites if they reject incest or they must be accepting of an otherwise deviant behavior that the majority of people consider abhorrent. If you are trying to defend their position, that article you posted did not do so because adultery CAN have consent. And being arbitrary with principles is not acceptable.

Thank you for sharing that article. I found myself actually agreeing with a lot of it. However, if we follow the idea of banning things based on the harm that [most instances of] a behavior does to family, then that opens the door for other legislation: legislation--that the article somewhat addresses--that would fly in the face of the arguments many liberals (read: sexual liberationists) proffer beyond just homosexuality. Liberals recoil from the argument of the article because many of them reject the central premise: they reject the idea of the good of the family superseding individual "rights."

I want to preface this post by saying I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. I'm going to try to simplify your argument. If the following is not representative of your argument, my apologies, but this was what I understood it to be: P1 If a child's desire for incest is a product of an abusive environment (duress) and not a natural behavior, then consent is impossible to maintain for child-parent incest. P2 A child's desire for incest is a product of an abusive environment (duress) and not a natural behavior. :: Consent is impossible to maintain for child-parent incest. This is certainly a valid argument. I agree: if the environment is abusive, that qualifies as a situation of duress, so I would not challenge P1. However, I am uncertain of how true P2 actually is. It could be that this is true in many--if not most--cases, but I don't think it's true of all cases. Certainly I know the internet has its share of individuals who express a desire to have sex with their parents. There's also a subreddit (/r/incest) largely dedicated to this subject. I think you might be hard pressed to assert that those individuals are all the product of an abusive environment. You could possibly assert that fantasies don't equate to actual desires, but that, too, is not going to be true for all. Perhaps, though, you don't mean to imply that abuse is a necessary condition, but that simply by virtue of the fact that it's a parent-child relationship, that that alone is sufficient to at least create a situation of undue influence (distinct from duress). If that is the contention, I agree in cases of minor children, but again am more skeptical when it comes to adult children. Legally, we allow adult children to enter into contracts with their parents. If the possibility of parent-child undue influence were something that precluded being able to consent to entering into a contract, then all parent-child contracts would be illegitimate; but that's not how things are. Adult children are presumed to have the capacity to consent to this kind of contract despite a possibility of undue influence. Not to mention that as time passes, the situation is usually the reverse: the child begins to have possible undue influence over elderly parents. So in-between those ends of the spectrum is the median: a point where both parties can enter into a contract without undue influence. What does happen in these types of contracts, however, is that when a dispute arises, unlike a typical contract, the burden of proof is shifted to the accused party. So perhaps this would require some kind of legislation to deal with, but--regardless--possible undue influence is not a means of precluding contractual relationships or consent.

What exactly is the opinion you are referring to? A syllogism isn't an opinion. It's an argument. It's either valid or it's not. And no, you did not define it there. You haven't even defined it correctly. You asserted that all slippery slopes are fallacies. You were already wrong from the beginning, and I have not seen you attempt to correct that. If this is your "definition" of slippery slope: ...then anything that does not "logically follow" is a "slippery slope" which describes EVERY FALLACY. That's fine if you don't personally accept the syllogism, but that (to my understanding) was the normative reasoning put forth by sexual liberationists. In that event, you are presumably saying that is not a reason to be accepting of homosexuality. However, those who DO fall into that category, like the sexual liberationists, would merely replace your position in the argument. Edit: And just to test you, do you think the above syllogism is a valid or an invalid argument?

Consent can encompass more than just age of consent (e.g. an unconscious person can't consent), so I was using it in that broader context when I was reading your examples. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that some "power balances" are situations where someone can't consent; just the opposite. "Power imbalances" is the superfluous factor to the ethical judgement being made, it's actually the lack of consent that some power imbalances create that is objectionable, which is why I was saying we should just stick with "lack of consent" because there exist relationships with "power imbalances" that do have consent (the examples I provided). It's just a matter of avoiding confusion . And when it's put in that perspective, at some point a child will no longer be a child and is going to be able to give consent. That may be "rare," but as Kemal is pointing out the issue is whether incest between consenting adults can be seen as non-deviant in the ethical sense by sexual liberationists. If the issue is "consent," then just like regular sex that the law has required needs consent, the law can require incest to have consent. However, the nature of what that would look like would likely be more legally restrictive given what you point out. “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." That isn't by definition a slippery slope fallacy at all. Another example that you don't understand the words you use. Your example is not by definition a slippery slope fallacy because not all slippery slopes use the the act of justifying as their causal link. You can retreat into Humean skepticism all you want with causation. That's why causation is treated inductively, not deductively. Slippery slope arguments, like ALL arguments, are evaluated on the principle of charity, meaning they are treated as inductive if (1) it fails as a deductive arguments and (2) the argument does not purport itself to be deductive via its grammar. I even told you as much that these are inductive arguments. But to your example, even your example is a strawman of sorts. A more accurate argument being made is: P1 x can be used to justify y P2 x can be used to justify z P3 x was used to justify y :: x will be used to justify z This addresses the jaywalking/murder analogy. Obviously if P2 isn’t true, if reasoning X can’t be used to justify action z (murder/incest), then the conclusion is not cogent. So how do we know X can be used to justify Z? Because we created the syllogism for it explaining the reasoning of sexual liberationists: P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance. P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm. ::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance. And murder clearly would render this syllogism unsound by virtue of making premise 2 false. Your example was obviously a ridiculous one because we can also reduce the population of your example down to just one person, say you for example, and making the argument "x was used to justify y by LordRahl2 and therefore x will be used to justify z by LordRahl2": P1 x can be used to justify y by LordRahl2. P2 x can be used to justify z by LordRahl2. P3 x was used to justify y by LordRahl2. :: x will be used to justify z by LordRahl2. Obviously that is not something that anyone could claim WILL happen with certainty. There clearly would exist the possibility of LordRahl2 not making that second justification for z. And this is where that wikipedia portion I first linked to you comes into play: The unstated middle ground here is the possibility of X not being used to justify Z, in which case the argument is this: P1 x can be used to justify y by LordRahl2. P2 x can be used to justify z by LordRahl2. P3 x was used to justify y by LordRahl2. :: x will be probably used to justify z by LordRahl2 OR x will not be used to justify z by LordRahl2 and LordRahl2 is a hypocrite. The probability of one result vs another was based--as previously explained--on a presupposition that people prefer to be consistent than be hypocrites. For you, that presupposition is clearly wrong. You prefer to be a hypocrite.

To me it sounds like you're simply describing a lack of consent. The introduction of "power dynamic" is unnecessary. If the 25 year-old progeny of a person wants to marry that person, that doesn't seem to be a violation of a lack of consent. At some age, that person is going to have that quality of autonomy, else that lack of ability to consent should extend to other facets of that person's life beyond his/her/xer choice of sexual partner.

In regards to power dynamic, what is the argument here? That there is a mere existence of one, or that the qualities of it make it exceptional? The only power dynamic that I'm aware of is between those who are assumed to be unable to properly consent being paired with those who can. If the power dynamic extends beyond that, then it should extend to more than just incest. You're opening a pandora's box of delegitimizing several kinds of disparate relationships. Perhaps you agree with me that no relationship is egalitarian. If the magnitude is sufficient, then presumably the relationship should be disallowed? Employees forbidden to marry their employers. Rich forbidden from marrying the poor. Smart forbidden from marrying the unintelligent. etc. Seems draconian. For any of these categories, the magnitude should be capable of approaching the quality of an incestual power dynamic. If the issue is convenience, is it really that difficult to determine who is a parent and who is a child and if the relationship is such? Regardless, the point of the thread was the eventual acceptance of incest. If incest between siblings is at all acceptable (immediate familial incest), the qualification for the "slippery slope" has been met, and the reasoning of one has led to another. Aside from those arbitrary biological differences, even sexologists would discriminate between the two (e.g. the Kinsey continuum). If there is really no difference, then even using the two terms is a pointless exercise. Just use them interchangeably.

Sorry to ignore the rest of your argument; I'll probably get to that later, but this part I just couldn't resist. Soz.

And you have no idea what I said, just as you have had no comprehension of the terms you use. You had no understanding of slippery slope as not always being fallacious. You had no understanding of induction. And now you have no understanding that logic must be applied consistently. A valid argument is in its form, not its conclusion. It's obvious you didn't know this, though, just as it was obvious you knew nothing of the prior subjects. And might as well go with this, too:

The compelling reason is being consistent in one’s principles. If the principle of non-harm is what establishes homosexuality as acceptable, then barring anything else that same principle applies to other situations, or else it was never a principle but a subjective sentiment. Given that this was the principle put forth by the sexual liberation camp, and being charitable that this entity actually does uphold its belief in its principles as more than subjective whim, then we extend the principle to other situations. If the principle holds, then so should the argument. P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance. P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm. ::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance. In this case, X = homosexuality. In many cases, X can also be incest. If this was the argument, then its validity should be applicable regardless of the subject we choose for X. If it’s not valid for incest, then it was never valid for homosexuality. In the absence of other circumstances (that you refuse to address), it does follow that one should be viewed as acceptable because it is presumed that people prefer to be consistent in their reasoning. It does not mean that it will be accepted in fact, but normatively it should be acceptable. I think it would be inductively probable that given time and a consistent trajectory of reasoning, that incest will become more accepted--just as homosexuality has--by sexual liberationists and their subscribers. In fact, you’ve seen it already in this thread. Q.E.D. I think part says a lot about you. I also think it shows the OP wasn’t wrong when he called your type hypocritical. You actually seem to be advocating a double standard. If incest is not to be viewed as acceptable “even in the event that similar logic might be applied†to it that was previously applied to homosexuality—(assumingly valid) logic that the sexual liberationists advocated that made homosexuality more socially acceptable—then that is a demonstrable example of OP’s accusation. You could absolutely apply the logic of legalizing jaywalking to murder—it’s just an exercise of consistency. The problem would be to *conclude* that murder should be legalized because you should have discovered the extreme dissimilarities between the two—namely, and appropriately, the two being measured against a standard of non-harm. And now we’re finally getting to the crux of the matter. Incest can absolutely be consistent with non-harm. It isn’t always (nor is any form of sex), but it is sometimes. And barring another objection, those times should be viewed by sexual liberationists as acceptable since they should meet the previous standards of acceptability. Edit: grammar

The similarities between homosexuality and incest are that they are two behaviors of sexuality at one time considered deviant. One has undergone normalization through the application of ethical arguments stemming from sexual liberationists that homosexuality should be considered a natural right as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (i.e. homosexuals should be allowed to do as they wish because they do not harm anyone in the process). The similarity can be contrasted to incest in that in many cases the same can be said. Two adults who have immediate family relations can be assumed to grant consent to sex with each other and not harm anyone in the process. The philosophy blog I previously linked on the first page gave several examples of where this similarity can be applicable. This is what I've said before and now repeated to you--hopefully with some greater clarity. If you are asserting that incest warrants severe legal punishment while homosexuality does not because of a legal standard between the two, then explain the reasoning that establishes such a standard. Does incest categorically describe situations where one party is harmed or does not consent? Please, we require explanation.

I agreed with the analogy being an example of the fallacy because I can agree to the notable distinctions between murder and jaywalking. Murderers would not be released from jail because, as I mentioned in my 3rd line of my sample argument, "the introduction of other ethical reasoning" can be brought to bear against murder that would not be applicable to jaywalking. Presumably, you have some similar ethical reasoning to introduce and to bring to bear against incest that creates that notable dissimilarity between the analgates. We requested you share that reasoning, and thus far you have only cared to assume that we know of what you are presupposing. We request again: what are the dissimilarities? What is the new ethical reasoning that applies to incest that does not apply to homosexuality? Until this is shared, the conversation cannot reasonably continue and you have demonstrated nothing.

Yes, please elaborate. As I said previously, this is where the ambiguity of what constitutes sexual transgression for the sexual liberation camp is found. I take it that you are now in agreement that the argument I provided is not fallacious.

If you are under the impression that in an inductive argument a conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises, then I'm informing you that you are mistaken. You are describing a deductive argument. Inductive arguments rely on inferences of probability. Otherwise, you are telling me that all inductive arguments are fallacies. As to your analogy, you're right, it would not follow that murder would be decriminalized because the shared properties between the two analogates (walking & murder) have notable, extreme dissimilarities. For that analogy to be accurate of our incest argument, it would mean discussing what those extreme dissimilarities are. If it turns out they are not so extreme and can be surmounted ethically (the issue at hand), then your analogy becomes weaker.

Except that's not true. We might make an inductive argument, not a deductive one, so something doesn't have to necessarily follow here, nor is that what is actually being argued. A deductive argument isn't being asserted.Nor is the assertation that homosexuality became more accepted because it violates a personal norm (if that's the case, then please quote the location of that specific argument). The argument is: A sexual practice was normalized using ethical reasons. That sexual practice became more accepted as a result. If something else can be normalized using the same ethical reasons, then--in the absence of the introduction of other ethical reasoning--that thing is likely to also become more accepted as a result. The question raised, to my understanding, is: what other ethical reasoning might mitigate the acceptance of incest and can it be easily surmounted? But this does not constitute a fallacious slippery slope. The causal chain is short. It could be extended and made slightly weaker if the argument includes the idea that incest would be made legal as a result and weaker still if it were to say that incest would become normal. The stronger argument is the simpler one, which I have shown above, so that should be the starting point. If you think the argument as I have outlined it is a still fallacious one (keep in mind its meant to be inductive), then let me know.

No, it's relevant to the thread. You asserted that slippery slopes are by definition fallacious, and I attempted to show otherwise. If it's not the case that slippery slopes are by definition fallacious, then an assertion on your part that in this case a slippery slope fallacy is being committed could warrant an argument all its own from you, else it's just an assertion. To borrow the position for the moment, the "slippery slope" argument relies upon ambiguity from the sexual liberation camp as to where the line for sexual transgression should be drawn. If the argument relies on the position of "do as thou wilt so long as no harm comes to others" then so long as that argument pertains to homosexuality, then it should pertain elsewhere as well so long as those conditions are met. If incest can meet those qualifications, then it's a strong 'slippery slope" argument that the reasons for one has led to the validation of another; and we are seeing some instances where that is happening (not to draw a position on it myself).

That site does not assert that all descriptions of slippery slope are by definition something fallacious. If you want, I'll scan a few of my college-level logic books that will assert a similar position to the wikipedia portion I linked previously. Labeling something a "slippery slope" has no bearing upon the cogency or strength of the argument, and colloquial usage of the term (as previously shown) "slippery slope" encompasses cogent arguments as well.

Slippery slope arguments are not by definition fallacious. The term may be used to describe a causal link that relies on cogent inductive arguments as well as uncogent ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage

Now America's got a chance to be great again.

Looks like Lannan13 deleted his nation. Shame; I was hoping for a response.

My condolences to Rose if they have to take this guy https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=19908along with all his forum contributions and nation bio:

Be sure to change your pip to Trump 2016's!

Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Rebuttal to "Contention 1: Economic Factors": Most of the content of this contention I addressed in my own opening statements, but I will reiterate them here. Stated fact #1 (Lannan13): >>Illegal immigrants have paid a total of $11 billion in taxes. I do not contest this fact. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes. I conceded as much in my opening statements. Stated fact #2 (Lannan13): >>Recent immigration reports have shown that just from last year, the illegal immigration has increased taxation in that year alon[e] by over $2 billion. Lannan13's source does not actually state this to be the case. The closest statement merely reads: >>Granting lawful permanent residence to all 11.4 million undocumented immigrants and allowing them to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2.2 billion a year.[1] The source merely stated a hypothetical scenario. The real statement is that if legalized, illegal immigrants would increase state and local taxation by $2.2 billion. This amended statement may be true, but it does not necessitate that the now legalized immigrants would be a net gain to these governments. Statement (Lannan13): >>We can see that the illegal immigration pay taxes and though $11 billion does not seem like much, it is still a huge profit for the federal government who's budget is in a world of hurt with the US debt clock over $19 trillion. The US can use all of the tax money they can. This can be broken down into several assertions: (1) $11 billion is a huge profit for the federal government (2) The Federal government's budget is in poor shape. (3) The Federal government's debt is over $19 trillion. (4) The Federal government can use all of the tax money it can. I do not contest assertions 2, 3, or 4. Assertion 1 is true if taken as a literal statement. In context, however, it is not. $11 billion is a nice boost to the Federal government; however, the $11 billion in question is being paid to state governments and local governments and not to the Federal government. Quoting Lannan13's source: >>Collectively, these households paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes. [2] Moreover, illegal immigrant taxes are not "profitable," particularly to state and local governments, when tax revenue is compared to incurred costs. Re-quoting from my opening statements: >>In 2012, according to a Heritage Foundation study, the average illegal immigrant household cost US taxpayers $14,387. The study also claims that illegal immigrants currently receive social benefits amounting to $54.5 billion more than they pay in taxes.[3,4] >> “The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, although the impact is most likely modest. […] Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.†[5] So illegal immigrants do not pay their "fair share" unless paying one's "fair share" means collecting much more in benefits than one pays in taxes. Statement (Lannan13): >>A study by CATO institution found that my opponent's deportation plan would shrink economic growth in the US by $250 billion a year. This is a sure way for the US to sink back into the recession. This would also hurt people at the bottom as for those without high school diplomas and low skilled laborers would have to fill the jobs formerly held by illegals and would drive the wages, as well as the dollar down. To quote Lannan13's source: >>In 2012, researchers at the Cato Institute estimated that a mass deportations policy would reduce economic growth by around $250 billion per year. Those costs would not be evenly distributed: Those at the very bottom of the income distribution, particularly those without a high school diploma, may even earn higher wages in the absence of undocumented immigrants. But in total, undocumented immigrants benefit the economy.[6] Firstly, the source contradicts Lannan13's assertion that domestic low-skilled laborers would be hurt or have their wages driven down. Even Lannan13's source here concedes that domestic low-skilled labor would benefit from increased wages. Secondly, a decline in GDP growth does not necessarily equate to a decline in total GDP (which is what is actually required to technically be a recession). In regards to the $250 loss of growth per annum, this is of course an estimation. Other estimations have put it at $1.6 trillion over the course of 20 years (or an average of $80 billion per year), which Lannan13 also cited in his third contention: Statement (Lannan13): >>If we were to deport ALL illegal immigrants in the US our nation's GDP would drop by $1.6 TRILLION! I addressed this specific point (and even used the same Atlantic article) in my opening statement, "Contention O."[7] To highlight the key takeaways from that section of my opening statements: (1) $1.6 trillion ***over the course of 20 years*** represents a 5.7% loss in economic growth (emphasis on growth--not total GDP) over 20 years, or a total additional GDP of 94.3% of the otherwise 100%. (2) Such a hypothetical loss of national GDP growth does not necessarily translate to a loss of per capita GDP (a measurement for the average standard of living). This is because fewer people (thanks to deportation) are sharing the GDP. (3) Comparisons of GDP and tax revenue when it pertains to the net effect of illegal immigrants are false simplifications. A loss of GDP and a loss of subsequent Federal tax revenue does not mean that the net effect upon government income and expenditures is a detrimental one. To reiterate, illegal immigrants constitute a net drain upon government services: >>A 1997 study by a National Academy of Sciences panel of demographers and economists details how immigration fuels U.S. population growth and the fiscal costs and negative social policy effects of the current large-scale immigration. The authors of the report The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, say that the study shows a positive economic benefit from immigrants. While that is true in a narrow sense, the study's finding of a possible economic benefit of from $1 billion to $10 billion is outweighed by the costs to the American taxpayer in budget outlays.[8] In the rest of "Contention 1: Economic Factors," Lannan13 asserts that deportation will cause a devalued dollar and inflation. To put it mildly, this is highly reductionist. Inflation has far more important factors than the deportation of illegal immigrants or their alleged impact upon GDP. And if the 5.7% loss of GDP *growth* (again, not total GDP) over the course of 20 years is anywhere close to being a sufficient cause for the apocalyptic scenario asserted by Lannan13, then any 5.7% loss of GDP growth over the same period of time would do the same--and that can happen for a myriad of very plausible reasons. Statement (Lannan13): >>[inflation and a devalued dollar] harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. Lannan13's point here depends on what he is asserting these foreign nations will not purchase from us: goods or debt instruments? Domestic inflation and a devalued dollar usually means that foreign nations have a stronger relative purchasing power and an easier time to purchase US goods (usually increasing exports). However, it's possible foreign nations would be less inclined to purchase US debt (which is what Lannan13 probably means). The reluctance of foreign nations to purchase more US debt would only increase total debt if the US did in fact increase interest rates, but it's not the devaluing of the dollar that is the ultimate cause of increased debt--it is the reliance of the Federal government upon the selling of debt instruments that ultimately precipitates more US debt. The US is not necessarily required to increase interest rates. The other possibility is reducing expenditures and increasing taxes. What Lannan13 is arguing is that the Federal government must have an easier opportunity to borrow to continue to pay off debt, and if the government has to raise interest rates, then the debt will skyrocket. Lannan13 misses the obvious in this argument: borrowing at any interest rate (above 0) to pay off previous debt will increase the debt--and this is regardless if the rate is higher (think of using a credit card to pay off another credit card). So if this is an issue of concern (and no doubt it is), then it is one that is expansive beyond the point where deportation of illegal immigrants would be a deciding factor in the outcome. But to get to the crux of the issue, the law and the American people are not to be held hostage to illegal immigrants because of an alleged economic doomsday the deportation of illegal immigrants would bring about. As I asserted previously, these alleged economic impacts of deportation are overstated/overemphasized in importance. And what's more, these alleged economic impacts would be highly offset by the absence of incurred costs via social programs--which costs would only be exacerbated even further under an amnesty program). Statement (Lannan13): >>We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. I find the use of "slippery slope" quite appropriate here. It very much fits the "For Want of a Nail, the Kingdom Was Lost" proverb.[9] But it seems Lannan13 is confusing what is the causal factor and what is being affected. Either a GDP loss is the cause of a devalued dollar, or a devalued dollar is the thing causing harm to the economy (and a loss of GDP). They can't both be the cause and the effect of each other at the same time. Also it's unlikely that the higher import costs that Gagnon would hypothesize also means a reliance on more imports. It's more likely to make domestic goods more competitive in relation to foreign goods (since foreign goods would hypothetically be increasing in cost). Rebuttal to "Contention 2: Wages": Statement (Lannan13): >>While in the US, illegal immigrants have been supporting their families back home while in the past year, illegal immgirants had sent home $63 billion. The source actually says: >>Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean last year reached an an estimated $63 billion, with most of the money going to support families in Mexico and Central America, and most of it coming from the US. Report: Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean in 2014, Orozco, Porras & Yansura, 2015 [10] There is no indication that this is solely from illegal immigrants. Measured remittances typically include legal and illegal resident remittances. Statement (Lannan13): >>This shows that they are not as "heartless" or "lazzy" as my opponent claims they are as it is impoosible to send that much home if you're living on welfare. I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I did not assert that illegal immigrants are heartless or lazy. However, as previous argued, illegal immigrants do use social programs and benefits in cost terms that exceed their tax contributions. Whether they send money to their native countries is irrelevant. It's also entirely possible to accomplish while accepting benefits from social programs given that illegal immigrant income is more often than not under-the-table (black market) employment and thus not a factor for eligibilty for social programs. Even legal immigrants, who do earn money legally, and use even more in social programs than illegals, are able to do so (as shown in my opening statements, "Contention L"). Either the data about the use of social benefits is incorrect, or the assertion that it is "impossible to send money while on welfare" is incorrect. It is probably the latter that is incorrect. Statement (Lannan13): >>The CBO reports that if we are to allow illegal immigrants work in the US, they will raise wages in the long hall, but deportation will lead to a decrease of our wages by 0.6%, which despite not sounding like much, is still a significant loss. The first thing that comes to mind here is that wages are being treated collectively. That's a key issue: the distribution of benefits do not match the distribution of costs. There are segments of society who will benefit more and those who won't. Those who employ low-skilled labor will benefit greatly, and those who purchase the products/services generated will benefit as well. Native low-skill laborers who are competing in the same economic sphere will not benefit in even remotely the same manner. I addressed this point in "Contention N" of my opening statements. Rebuttal to "Contention 3: True Costs of Deportation": I addressed this in "Contention O" of my opening statements and again in the rebuttal to Lannan13's "Contention 1: Economic Factors. Rebuttal to "Contention 4: Birthright Citizenship": Statement (Lannan13): >>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The citizenship clause of the US Constitution I have posted above shows that those born on US soil are US citizens. Actually, there is significant debate on whether it does or does not do so. There is contention that the children of illegal immigrants may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. if neither parent are. Both conditions (1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" and (2) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must be met by virtue of the word "and" as a Boolean operator. If illegal immigrants and their children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then the children may be denied citizenship.[11] >>Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners." [12] >>In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[13] If the text of the amendment were taken without the context of the original intent, then American Indians after the passing of the amendment would be citizens upon birth, but they weren't given citizenship under the 14th amendment. It wasn't until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that all American Indians born in the U.S. were granted citizenship.[14] Moreover, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed during the same time as the 14th amendment, expressly restricted granting citizenship to those who were subject to a foreign power (contextually meaning born of alien parentage) yet born in the U.S.[15] When read together, there is a strong argument that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" equated to "not being subject to a foreign power." It may be current policy to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants (via Plyler v. Doe [16]), but it is not a certainty that it is a guaranteed constitutional right. This is a subject that likely will require judicial review. Statement (Lannan13): >>Under the plan that my opponent is defending, all illegal immigrants would be deported which would leave 4 million orphans in the US. These 4 million children wouldn't be "orphans." Their parents would continue being alive. And those parents would still have custody of their children. It would be their prerogative to take their children with them. The assumption being made here is that the parents of these children would prefer to abandon their children in the U.S. than raise them in the parents' native country. No doubt this is being used as a threat with the children acting the part of hostages--human shields for their parents. And what is being perhaps overlooked here is that the situation has been allowed to progress to this point precisely because it wasn't handled when the problem was smaller. If it is allowed to continue, then the problem will grow. By deporting illegal immigrants despite these "anchor babies" (to use the colloquialism), it will serve to discourage more in the future. If policy is such that "anchor babies" really do act as such and cause the capitulation of the enforcement of law, then that merely serves to encourage it. It should also be noted that if this argument being made by Lannan13 were universalized, it would be a justification to grant clemency to anyone who breaks the law (any law) and has children who would be adversely affected. Rebuttal to "Contention 5: Increased Uneducated leads to increase of MW which harms economy.": Without reposting it, I agree with most of this contention. I agree that large numbers of low-skilled labor are a driving factor for calls for raising the minimum wage (along with the consequences associated with that). For that reason, illegal immigrants should be deported as they are predominantly low-skilled labor (operating illegally, too). Perhaps that might be a snarky response, but it is the one that is consistent. Putting numbers aside for the moment, here we presume that both deporting and not deporting have an undesirable adverse consequence (the contention). Both actions require government action and citizen taxation: one to pay for the enforcement of immigration law and the other to pay for social programs. But one of these actions is on the side of U.S. law; the other is not. The latter (not deporting) requires either ignoring or changing existing immigration law to be achieved. The former (deportation) has no comparable legal requirement. But immigration law exists for a purpose different from social programs (it is assumed that education is a substantial social program). Social programs are not presumed to exist as a protection of the natural rights of citizens but rather as a benefit that the general citizenry (via government) are willing to afford to certain segments of society. Immigration law is fundamentally different; in the statist system, immigration law serves to protect the rights and property of U.S. citizens. Social programs (for better or worse) could not exist in the same manner without the protection that is afforded by immigration law--that is to say, without immigration law and its studious enforcement, there could not be social programs (and this is the important part...) without the violation of the rights and property of existing U.S. citizens. Whether or not it would be more beneficial to deport some (estimated) 11-12 million low-skilled, illegal immigrants or keep them to (allegedly) avoid having 4 million new low-skilled laborers is probably not of significant consequence to make a ruling one way or the other given other factors and given the assumption that those 4 million children would (1) be caused to be uneducated/unskilled by deportation of illegal immigrants and (2) actually be living in the U.S. and not abroad with their parents. Rebuttal to "Contention 6: The Veil of Ignorance": Statement (Lannan13): >>Take the Syrian refugees for exmaple, under this plan we would be sending the refugees back to Syria where people are being massacred or like in the 70's after the US pulled out. If Syrian "refugees" are illegal immigrants, then yes they could be sent somewhere other than the U.S. (perhaps Syria or perhaps not--that's probably case-by-case issue). But I don't believe Syrian refugees are illegal immigrants--if they are legal refugees, then that would make them fall under a classification separate from illegal immigrants. That being said, the U.S. has the ability to refuse Syrian refugees entry into the United States. Statement (Lannan13): >>The South Vietnamese were being slaughtered by their new communist overlords as people built make-shift rafts to attempt to escape and the US turned many of them away to return to Vietnam where their fate was death. Again, this probably isn't an issue of illegal immigration. If the U.S. is legally choosing to allow Vietnamese refugees to reside in the United States because of the circumstances of war in Vietnam, then the Vietnamese are no longer illegal immigrants. However, if the U.S. has not allowed it, then the U.S. is not under the requirement to hold any positive obligations to those "refugees" who act against the wishes of the United States by coming to the U.S. regardless. Statement (Lannan13): >>Under this situation your enemy would have you return to the nation you had come from under this plan as where you had come from is a whole lot worse than the US. I think a better example of what is attempted to be argued here is the example of Cuba and the Cuban immigrants that largely settled in places like Florida. The U.S. recognized that there were some extenuating circumstances surrounding the plight of Cuban immigrants and created a specific policy regarding them ("Wet feet, dry feet policy").[17] If one accepts the premise that there is some moral obligation to accepting these kind of "refugees," then the onus is upon the U.S. to meet that obligation through legal means. Such a moral commandment or unchosen positive obligation does not create a sound justification for one party (e.g refugees) to transgress upon the rights of another party (e.g. the U.S. and its citizens) in the absence of voluntarism. Statement (Lannan13) >>Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [...] Due to this, this plan is unethical as it fails under the Veil of Ignorance. In the application of Federal immigration law, it is (for the most part) irrelevant what one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation are. If one is an illegal immigrant, the law will apply regardless of those things. Immigration law equally applies (which is why the topic in discussion uses the quantifier ALL illegal immigrants). Assuming for the moment that one accepts "Rawl's Veil of Ignorance," the application of immigration law is not an apparent violation of it. There are two relevant distinctions here: (1) immigrants and non-immigrants, and (2) legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Those who are subject to deportation are (1) immigrants and (2) illegal [immigrants]. Within the category of "illegal immigrants," there isn't a subset that is subject to a greater degree of bias due to any description regarding one's "creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation." Given that, this contention either doesn't apply, or the contention is actually arguing that the very distinction of "illegal" vs. "legal" immigrant (or possibly immigrant vs non-immigrant) is a violation of "Rawl's Veil of Ignorance." If that is a consequence of the contention, that there should be no law that creates the class of "illegal immigrant," then that should have been made more clear by Lannan13. And if that is the contention, then the necessary consequence of that position is that there can be no immigration law that discriminates in any fashion--to the point where even the enforcement of law regarding immigrants is non-existent. Perhaps the only discrimination that would be allowable would be one based upon quantity, but even then, anyone who violates the law by being one that contributes to exceeding that prescribed quantity would still be an illegal immigrant, and thus would create that classification of illegal immigrant. So even a discrimination based upon quantity fails under this viewpoint. The only avenue left to interpret this viewpoint is that it is an argument for no immigration law (i.e. open borders). And since this wasn't an explicit contention, nor was it mentioned in the opening statements of Lannan13, I will choose not to argue against open borders here except to reiterate the point that the U.S. and its citizens, like all nations and people, have determined they have the option to enforce immigration law and maintain control of borders regardless of arguments for a "veil of ignorance." It should also be noted that the U.S. has presumably violated the "veil of ignorance" in both the past and present when it comes to immigration policy. The U.S. immigration policy is such that those who may be granted legal entry (and thus classified as "legal immigrants") are subject to discrimination. The U.S. has in the past denied legal entry to those who held political viewpoints that were viewed as extreme, dangerous, or undesirable. [18,19,20] It still does to this day, excluding "anarchists, communists, totalitarians, and advocates of assassination, government overthrow by force, destruction of property, and sabotage."[21] U.S. immigration policy has also in the past discriminated against the poor, sick, mentally feeble, and those of "low moral character."[22] U.S. immigration policy presently still discriminates to prefer immigrants who could be colloquially called the "creme of the crop" with tiered preferences based upon an immigrant's economic utility.[23] If one accepts that a country is able to discriminate and choose who may be a legal immigrant, then one may ask: why allow discrimination in this form but disallow it when it comes to non-immigrants? One possible argument might contend that a "social contract" exists between fellow citizens that does not exist between citizens and immigrant candidates, analogous to co-renters choosing new roommates. A more pragmatic observation would acknowledge that without such an ability to discriminate, there would be a large opportunity for exploitation and abuse of existing domestic systems and state institutions by immigrants. When that exploitation would occur, those state institutions and systems would ultimately be untenable. Given that the domestic population has chosen to create and maintain these systems and state institutions, indiscriminate immigration is deemed counter to the interests of the domestic population. Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance," if it is applicable to immigration law, has been rejected. It might be also worth noting that almost every alliance in P&W violates Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance" in this manner by holding the right to discriminate and choose who may or may not be accepted as a member of the alliance. Much like alliance membership, legal status and citizenship are established as "club goods" rather than "public goods" due to the creation of exclusivity. And there's the rub: if one takes a club good and attempts to make it into a public good, the tragedy of the commons manifests, and the initial (mostly) non-rivalrous nature of the club good is exploited, likely to a point where it is no longer non-rivalrous.[24] And on the note of discrimination, to never discriminate under the premise that any discrimination violates equality of liberty can be utterly foolish--particularly if the person to be discriminated against is in fact one's "enemy." http://www.heritage....the-us-taxpayer 5. https://www.cbo.gov/...immigration.pdf(page 3) 6. https://newrepublic.com/article/118602/deporting-all-undocumented-immigrants-would-cost-billions-immigration 7. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/ 8. http://www.fairus.org/issue/national-academy-of-sciences-immigration-study 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail 10. http://www.thedialogue.org/agenda/programs/remittances/press/ 11. http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction 12. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens 13. http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html 14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act 15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frLQcUYghN4 16. http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/ 17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1903 19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1918 20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law 21. ibid. 22. http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-ellis-island 23. https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers 24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good#Club_theory