I was never an expert in the social sciences. Sure, I took a few courses of sociology, but I mostly just slept through those classes (as I am notoriously wont to do) and got by on my charming good loo- I mean, stock knowledge and rational thinking. Same thing went for debate, especially the socio-legal ones. You won't see me debating higher theory or referencing Focault or Stiglitz or whoever great mind is in vogue this particular season. I'm what I'd like to call a blue-collar debater.
Which explains the glass ceiling that I've already reached in debating (and no, Nicolo, I'm not pulling a Cabrera).
In any case, my limitations being what they are, that doesn't stop me from reading up on issues and making up motions and basically just thinking what kind of things would make for a good, balanced, interesting debate. It just stops me from participating in the more complex ones that I think about.
And if there ever was a complex socio-legal debate that is way over my head, it's this one.
Horrible mutations aside, what are the arguments for/against consensual incest?
Possible motion being,
"This house sees nothing wrong with non-reproductive, consensual incestuous relationships."
Here's a good point,
To prohibit two people from having sex because their offspring may be "defective" or "inferior" is to adopt the standpoint of a eugenicist.
My brain cannot go deeper than seeing the issue though. Hell, I feel dirty just posting this.