Tugging on heart strings? Traps? An interesting response from my opponent. Hardly am I attempting to tug at the strings of any of our readers.
What I am going to do is present the facts and paint the clear picture of what it is we are dealing with. As my opponent manipulates the topic and
attempts to offer definitions that suits his position, I'll be sure to offer as much transparency, as I truly see it, throughout this debate.
I'm going to begin this first rebuttal with a response to my opponent's recent post and then move forward with my position.
Putting the failings of our justice system aside for a moment, let’s take a look at the people to which our topic would affect.
I'm glad we agree that the justice system has its' failures. My opponent will have you ignore these in an attempt to illustrate what it is he wants
you to hear. But in doing so, he concedes the failures of the justice system and it's willingness to convict innocent men. As we proceed through
this response and this debate, I will be touching on the concept of "repeat offender".
So despite the best efforts of my opponent to make it seem as though we would be experimenting on possibly innocent people, we are only really dealing
with repeatedly convicted felons.
Since we're at it, let's touch on it now.
If a man is convicted of a crime, what baggage does he carry with him for the rest of his life? A criminal record. And since we're dealing with the
term "felony", let us take a moment to clearly define it.
As shown here
, the definition of a felony is quite simply a serious crime. Listed
you can see a plethora of examples of various felonies that citizens can be charged with.
Hopefully now my opponent sees that I am not trying to paint a picture of jaywalkers being persecuted. However, what I am seeing in this list is a
list of crimes that every year too many innocent men and women are sent to prison on. If we consider for a second if an innocent man or woman is
standing in a court room before a judge and jury having been charged with a serious offense, and they were to have a criminal record, the likelihood
of them receiving a fair shake is hardly reasonable. What I speak of here is a man or woman who was guilty of a crime in the past. They did their
time and paid their debt to society. At some point in the future they are once again brought up on charges that they are in fact not guilty of. The
system is even more likely to fail them now as they'll consider them a high risk offender. An unlikely scenario you may be thinking? Consider how
many citizens are and have been convicted of these crimes and are walking the street. Now how many of them are facing second charges? If in the
hundreds of thousands of people that fit this demograph, only a handful are truly innocent and wind up persecuted. They would qualify for this
program that my opponent supports. And they would be experimented on against their will.
It is completely unethical.
I have taken the time to consider how unethical it is to partake in such an action against potentially innocent men and women. I will now take that
same stance with those who are in fact guilty and are actually repeat offenders. Our justice system is based on just that, justice
is not revenge or unlawful punishment. If a person is guilty of a crime, they deserve to be punished with what fits. If it is life in prison,
probation or even a death sentence, the necessary sentence will be handed down by those in charge. The logistics of the punishments handed down is
certainly open to interpretation but that discussion is for another time and place.
In developed countries around the world and throughout history, who has supported the experimentation and torture of individuals against their will?
Nobody has. Why? Because it is unethical
and people will not stand for it.
Put them in a prison cell or condemn them to death. These are the harshest punishments handed out by developed justice systems. Why? Because it is
the most that any body of government can do within the limitations of our moral compasses and ethical guidelines that we live by in a civilized
You know who would have supported the program my opponent speaks of? A program where those deemed unworthy
are used as seen fit. Adolph
. Hitler and ethics are not quite synonymous.
Torture? Wild operations and radical surgical procedures? Shock therapy?
Is that really the intent or the purpose of our topic, or could it be something a lot less sinister? Although the above mentioned things certainly can
come to mind when thinking of experimentation, that is not what we are talking about here. My opponent implores you to consider how horrible it would
be to experiment on someone’s son or daughter; but what if that experiment were not inherently harmful?
Pain is not a factor in the equation. We have basic human rights and an action that denies these basic human rights is unethical. No questions ask.
It is a simple fact that you are ignoring.
My opponent has stated that the potential "negatives" in experimentation are not what we are here to talk about. Unfortunately, it is a part of it.
It is the part of it that I intend to discuss. I thought my opponent would take the time to show the opposite side of the coin, however he has not.
He has merely stated that what I am talking about isn't what we are here to talk about. Yet.. he has yet to tell us his position. He's told you
I'm wrong, but has failed to say why he is right.
If someone came into my house right now and said he wanted to experiment on me and wouldn't comment further, his ass would be to the curb. Would my
opponent do the same?
Two words that I think are worth our consideration at this point.
My opponent quotes these utopian treatment plans where bad people are tested with good things to benefit the world. What my opponent fails to share
with us are the side effects that are going to be evident in every test case and the potential risk we are opening these individuals up to. Even if
the outcome of the test is a positive one, the side effects that may come with these unknown chemicals pose a great risk. And using these men and
women as guinea pigs
for this line of treatment is absolutely unethical.
Let's say the program would save some lives. We would have no possibly way of knowing it at the time, but for discussion.. let's say in the long
run it would work out. We'd consider ourselves lucky and thankful for the lives we saved in the long run.
HOWEVER, it would not imply that the initial program was ethical. The fact remains, regardless of the final outcome, that the program is completely
unethical. And any conclusion that is drawn at the end is going to have absolutely no bearing on how ethically sound the initial plan was.
It violates basic human rights, it is unethical.
I will now pose my Socratic questions to my opponent.
SQ1. Would you volunteer innocent men and women for these programs?
SQ2. In a yes or no
format, is the denial of our basic human rights unethical? Elaborate if you wish, but please answer with a yes or
SQ3. Do you believe Hitler would support a program where humans were experimented on?
SQ4. If the participants of these programs died from side effects, would you consider it ethical?
SQ5. Without being a repeat felon, would you volunteer yourself for this program?
As we move forward with this debate, I will be touching on several points. It is my belief that if one is going to accept that these programs are
ethical, than the variables should not be a factor. Whether they are a felon or not, whether the program is successful or not, none of these
variables should factor in to whether or not the program is deemed ethical. World wide we have been offered basic human rights for a reason, and that
reason was to fend of programs just as this one where a specific group of people are attempted to be persecuted in an unethical manner.
What my opponent supports is Apartheid for criminals.
I'll also be looking to hear from my opponent in future replies what exactly he considers torture to be. Since we disagree on these programs being a
form of torture, I'm truly looking forward to what he has to say on the topic.
I need a drink though, so I'll exit stage left and offer the floor back to my opponent.