# Debate 1 ## Proposition >"the claim that killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations is unfalsifiable" --- ## Semantic Analysis ### Unclear Terms 1. unfalsifiable 1. still no clue 1. a hypothesis is falsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is practically achievable 2. a hypothesis is unfalsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is impractical 2. disprove 1. --- ## Clarified Proposition >demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis that "killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations" is impractical ## Questions 1. # Dom's Rebuttal >Both "killing X reduces rights violations" (A) and its negation "killing X does not reduce rights violations" (B) are falsifiable, as long as the goalposts arent moved. For both you can devise some experiment where we observe rights violations (in a set area, for a given time, etc), kill X, observe rights violations under the same constraints again. Lets label the results "less rights violations observed" P and "equal or more rights violations observed Q. Under: > >A+P, A is not rejected >A+Q, A is rejected >B+P, B is rejected >B+Q, B is not rejected --- ### Dom's Reductio
P1) If one claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations and one can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable, then the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
(P∧Q→¬R)
P2)
One claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations.
(P)
P3)
One can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable.
(Q)
C)
Therefore, the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
(∴¬R)

[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5~3R),(P),(Q)|=(~3R)) --- # Hashtags #debate #debate_opponents