1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2406
Abortion is ok because science says it's not a human yet is a valid defense
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
I would argue as science still requires faith in areas, Is constantly shown to be errant, And even if roughly correct can be changed due to precision of newly developed tools and techniques; it cannot be the basis for a defense that the unborn baby is not a human whose life has value and is worth defending.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con cess ion
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
concession
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Basically a concession.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Konzeshion
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Basically a concession. Also ragnar used a lot more sources.
ARG>PRO
SRC>PRO
S&G>TIE
CONDUCT>TIE
You've GOT to talk to BrotherDThomas lol. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4611-when-will-the-hypocrisy-of-the-catholic-church-ever-end
I'm glad you feel that way. I can't speak for anyone. But it's incredibly frustrating when I see people who proport to be Christians and are just ignorantly popping off at others. Hey, if it helps this audience, I'll give you something to potentially redirect and refocus someone.
(Rather than saying look you're wrong, be it a correct statement) What i literally ask brothers and sisters i see doing this to others is how, in your approach, are you fulfilling Christ's command in 1 Peter?
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:15 ESV
It's pleasant to see a friendly discussion instead of a flamewar, especially on a topic as controversial as abortion
I have to take a friend to the airport, so out of time. I'll respond to your points in R2.
Hey man, if you're willing and have the patience to probably get frustrated at newby mistakes of debate style, premise, flow, etc.
I'm here to discuss, and learn, and to take in new evidence and views. Im all for it in whatever form.
If you want to concede, we can have the debate technically move forward with that in place. It's just be labeled a concession so neither of us needs to worry about argument strength, and voters at the end would vote based on that rather than who was more convincing.
Otherwise a moderator can delete it (which sadly loses the comment section and what you've written as arguments). My preference is for the first option, but again, I'm fine with either.
Good post. In fact, great post!
My draft does not get into dogs but it actually contains cat abortions as a point (it weirdly does morality relate to human abortion opposition).
I'm actually not sure how to cancel. I'm happy to concede if that's an option.
I very much appreciate the offer on coaching. I'll be in touch if I get some more free time for this. I'm coming to the end of a work vacation and am about to get much busier.
Let's cancel. I'll be around. I'll be learning. When I can better round of terms and drive to a more solid debatable foundation, ill be back.
Thank you for your patience and understanding!
As you will present the "science" side of this debate, I'd wonder how science defines the distinction of "human" vs. "person." I don't believe science has that distinction any better defined than the law has. To me, "human" is a species, and, as far as that goes, that is defined immediately upon conception. Actually, it's immediately defined by each gamete, but they each represent just half the species, and they begin to exist at the point in zygotic development upon cell differentiation in vitro. A "person" is far less well defined, and federal law defines that as immediately upon live birth [Title 1, USC 8] However, the law disagrees with itself by several State fetal homicide statutes, for example, Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006), which apply a duaql murder charge with the homicide of a pregnant woman. Murder is a legal term that applies to human persons, only. Murder of a dog is a misnomer.
I would be fine with canceling this one if you want to. Otherwise be prepared for some comedy, along with a good explanation on logical validity vs. soundness.
Either way, on here or on the forums I would be happy to coach you to strengthen your argument and craft a better resolution. A lot of the debates I do are largely just trying to teach people on how to improve.
lol i was just generating an easily winnable argument (probably not urs) since the resolution is somewhat "flawed"
I hope I'm not that nitpicky... But thematically, my argument is pretty much iron clad for similar reasons.
I will soon
Thirded
I support.
#BringBackTheLikeButton
Ragnar's argument be like:
It is near science in the sentence so 'it' replaces science. Science is not a human is true. Science is science. Therefore, it is a true statement, which is a valid defense.
That might actually work. Based on the grammar of the resolution, the only available antecedents for "it" are abortion or science.
It is so easy to argue PRO since all resolution says is "it" so that could be anything. Ragnar pretty much wins.
yeah, im interested, but which side of the question are you trying to uphold?
You've got two different conditions -
"abortions are ok" moral question
and
"not yet human is valid defense" legal question
which are looking to discuss?
A valid legal defense is not moral sanction so I wonder which way you're looking to go. I'd also recommend defining all these terms.