(March 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm)robvalue Wrote: When you say men will be "charged", what exactly does that mean? Criminal proceedings?
Charge in this case would mean sanction. In the context of the matter the relevant consideration would be civil liability rather than criminal. No crime has been committed. Restitution could be in the form of financial and/or emotional compensation. However this is largely irrelevant to what I was seeking help with. I think I didn't clearly articulate what it is I need help with.
@Dystopia: Thanks for your contribution. I actually got some good ideas after reading your post. What I was trying to communicate though was how to frame the overarching premise of the debate. For example if I were to define the context of the debate through justice, then it becomes easier to generate points for the prop. Justice being defined as giving each what he or she is due.
This is a solid place from which arguments can flow for both sides. So I guess it's important to not only define the specific terms of the motion, but also the valuation criteria from which we can assess if the arguments are achieving it. In this case justice would have been the valuation criteria.
Without a valuation criteria I get stuck with why. So what if a kid grows up without his father? Why must the father be responsible? Why this, why that? Usually debates are dealt with in the context of morality. Like I said morals are relative. If I'm a sociopath then I can fuck a chick and bail no problem. But justice is more objective than morals.
8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
