natural flavoring is made out of babies

Arguments: Pro fails to prove his points, and many flaws in the argument are pointed out by Con. Pro's claims are often not backed by proper evidence, and many times, content is completely irrelevant. Con points out the use of "all/any" when referring to natural flavors, and as the source he provides was not disputed, arguments fall in favor of Con. Also, many flaws with "babies" vs "fetus" weaken Pro's argument.

Sources: Pro's sources seem to contradict him. He also includes sources on vaccines, that seems to not be the focus of this debate. On the other hand, Con's sources support his claims and clearly have a lot more strength to their reliability.

Spelling and grammar: Pro often contains glaring spelling errors (i.e "lieing"), along with formatting aspects such as not having spaces after periods, lowercase i, and improper grammar that makes sentences awkward/difficult to read. Con pays attention to spelling and grammar and does not make mistakes I have blantaly picked up on.

Conduct goes to Con as pro used accusatory language such as "monster" and accuse of cheating, all of which are not appropriate.

I did enjoy reading this debate. I found the arguments to be quite entertaining. Good job!

This would have been better as a concession. Pro's case is almost immediately made dependant on his claim that his own sources must be lying, and that a supernatural power stepped in to blind those who disagree with him.

Con runs a discourse kritik, that even were pro correct, it would not be babies but embryos which natural flavoring is made out of. ... Contextually the description made what he was referring to clear, but such flawed language still deserves to be corrected to improve future debates. The related Ad Hominem committed by pro, makes it tempting to just give con victory for this semantic approach and offer no further review (pro was at least able to point to the description for context, so I'll keep going).

Okay, I initially thought other voters may have been over enthusiastic to award conduct, but for his final round pro accuses con of cheating for engaging in the debate; before going into an off topic tangent about medicine in plants... The insults while not getting vile, are just too high a percentage of the arguments.

So there's no case that natural flavorings are made out of babies, merely that some taste receptors in an artificial sweetener might be derived from embryonic tissue (from pro's own source: "is not a naturally derived sweetness enhancer. It appears to be artificially synthesized from chemicals.").

This became an easy debate to judge considering Pro's poor research and worse use of sources cited.

Argument: Pro's errors begin at the resolution and description. Pro's misuse of "babies," although "aborted" misses the proper definition. A "baby," as Con argues in R1, is a post-natal creature. Pre-natal is correctly defined as a "fetus." Pro's sources also make the mistake, and pro does not correct it in argument. Also, Pro challenges Con in R2 "Where in the article does it say they do not use aborted babies...?" Well, in fact, the referenced article does NOT refer to "babies" or "abortion," so Pro fails in his point. Con's argument, by contrast, are logical and well documented, such as in definitions, and refuting the ubiquitous use of fetal cells in all natural flavorings, when Pro's subesequent arguments deny this, conflicting with his own resolution.Points to Con

Sources: Pro's R1 Snopes source first agrees with, then denies pro's resolution, and Pro agrees, invalidating the source. Pro's mental floss source drifts from supporting Pro by saying that fetal cells are not directly used in product flavoring, but that an old line of subsequently re-engineered cells are used in testing product. The CBS News source, further clarifies that new fetal cells are being used, but rather re-engineered cells from a line first created in the 1970s. pro does not do sufficient research to clarify that his sources support his argument. Con,s sources, by contrast, such as PerfectKeto.com, clearly support Con's argument of the lack of fetal cells in product for natural flavoring. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro loses conduct for several derogatory comments to Con, such as calling him "monster" [actually, anyone who agrees with Con], and accusing Con of "breaking the rules," by re-defining, when, in fact, pro had the "baby" definition wrong, not to mention his sources. Point to Con

Argument:

Pro never got close to proving that natural flavoring is made out of babies, and even their cited article disagrees with them. As Con also points out, their definitions are confused, "aborted baby" is non-sensical, as it is either aborted or a baby. From there Pro tried to attack Con with Ad hominems, calling them a monster for not agreeing, whenever the literal definitions disagree. This is a clear win for Con.

Conduct:

I'm penalizing Pro due to the aformentioned ad hominem as well as general bad faith throughout the argument, they repeatedly refused to engage the definitions, instead resulting to insults.