I thank PRO for attempting to put something constructive in the last round response.
So you mean to say that when someone is in confusion, you expect them to debate blind? Are you that low to take advantage like that? You don't need to be intellectually honest and answer a question. That's the way it seems.You were informed of doing something that would help a person, you utterly deflect from it.
I got to hold your feet to the fire to do this exchange in a constructive fashion. If I have questions typically or occasionally, there should be no problem. It's not just about debating , proving things, you have to communicate.
OBJECTION: I restate Oromagi's regular quote that would be extremely useful:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"
This is the debate section, not the
forums. In the debate section, PRO, which is my opponent, who voluntarily attempted to debate, will, of course, bear the BoP of proving that I am less pro-life than I think. Debating here means winning and losing, and debating and proving things are MUCH more important than sheer communications because that is what DEBATING is. PRO has failed to do so, instead, he posted arguments in a Forum-Esque fashion that inquires but doesn't explain. PRO has failed to fulfill the BoP, and since CON is to point out fallacies of PRO's BoP and Proof, I have fulfilled my job since PRO has not even given me any constructive proof about why I am less pro-life than I think.
And yes, I am technically that low to take advantage like that. In fact, I did not take any advantage at all because I am clearly welcome to debate here and I clearly proved that PRO did not fulfill his BoP.
Deflecting a question, in this case, wouldn't be so bad, consider:
- Answering questions are not needed to disprove PRO's BoP
- I only delayed for one round and I had answered the question, so it is not needed to make a big fuss and crust about the issue.
- I already answered the question in Round 1 before PRO asked it. Read the text. It is helpful.
My "response" in R1:
Conclusions:
- I think I am not pro-life
- A quiz says that I am not pro-life
- Because not pro-life and not pro-life are equal, thus I am as pro-life as I think I am, which would prove my opponent wrong.
- Some non-pro-choice people gets the pro-choice position, meaning there might be a chance that I am more Pro-life than I think I am(less pro-choice, since the test has a better tendency of dispensing Pro-choice results).
PRO persisted asking even though I already stated my answer to that question prior.
You're not anti-abortion as the premise in the description specifically , specifically states and points out. Instead of using all that obscure language in the previous round, just come out and say "I'm actually not anti-abortion." That's what the premise is dealing with. Those who are pro life (anti-abortion) and can be vetted
down to the "T" to discover just how truly pro life they are.
OBJECTION: English languages ensure that pro-choice individuals can, indeed, fit the criteria. Let me revisit the Criteria.
This debate is more for the individuals with a so called pro Life position unless you wish to play opposition advocate.
So, this means that Pro-life individuals are only "more" welcome than pro-choice individuals, but the description DOES NOT say that only Pro-life individuals can enter. So this means more or less, Pro-choice individuals are allowed to accept this debate. Typing "[For Pro-Life Individuals Only]" would make the debate much more winnable by PRO the individual. And you know what is a more effective system?
- Go on the Forums and ask who is Pro-life. If yes, proceed, if no, repeat from the beginning.
- Ask that person whether he wants a debate or not. If yes, proceed, if no, repeat from the beginning.
- Instigate a debate FOR him. If he accepts, have a discourse on this topic. If no, repeat from the beginning.
Look! This affair is much easier to regulate. PRO voluntarily put this debate on the page with absolutely NO restrictions at all towards any user, and rhetorically non-pro-life people can also accept, that would mean I DO, In fact, fit the criteria. And no, I technically did not disprove PRO because he did not bring ANY reasons that I am less pro-life than I think. Meets someone unexpected, and complaining takes over all the supposed detailed inquiry.
I have successfully fulfilled my job, which is to prove that PRO did not sufficiently prove that I am less pro-life than I think.
All my points in round one remain undisproved and rock-solid.
Thank for y'all voters for reading this text. If you find my arguments more convincing, please vote CON.
This should be interesting. I'm expecting PRO to utilize something along the lines of the argument presented in Thompson's "In Defense of Abortion" paper
Only 1 day left. Just to remind you.
I'm not an authoritarian.
If I am not mistaken, you are authoritarian right?
I'm pro life and therefore:
-Want abortion banned and punished.
-Want the 2nd amendment, which defends against the biggest mass shooter in history (tyrannical governments)
-Want poverty ended, and realize that the war on poverty is a counterproductive failure that needs to be overturned.
-Want the minimum wage abolished, so low income people find better paying jobs on their own.
-And more, that I don't feel like listing right now.