Debate 1

Proposition

"the claim that killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations is unfalsifiable"

Semantic Analysis

Unclear Terms

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
disprove 1.

Clarified Proposition

demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis that "killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations" is impractical

Questions

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

Hashtags

#debate #debate_opponents

2.1 KiB Executable file Raw Blame History