Abortion Should be Illegal.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules:
Only topic to be discussed is weather abortion should be illegal, or legal.
If Con choses to defend abortion being legal, they must:
1. State when the cutoff point for abortion should be (because if there is no cutoff point, then they are defending homicide.)
2. When they answer #1, they must have a reason to why that point should be the cutoff point.
The only exception is that Pro does agree to Cons side of the argument, if they chose to argue that the mother will die if she does not get an abortion.
Both sides must reply to their opponent first with a counterargument.
Then they may proceed to the rest of their argument.
Effectively, con missed a single round, and pro decided to drop con's entire case.
Most importantly, pro decided to drop that denied abortions creates a net harm for society; particularly the existing children of the woman choosing to receive an abortion. This is contrasted with a lack of benefit, as con pointed out the abortions will still occur, just in an unsafe manner.
One point there was actually a little back and forth on was early chemical abortions compared to contraceptives vs later surgical abortions... I wish they had delved deeper into this, but it seems it falls most closely to an extension of contraception, as opposed to the procedure pro described for a pathos appeal.
Arguments: R1PRO and R3CON are the main argument rounds, so I will focus on those.
In R1PRO, PRO's main argument revolves around proving that abortion is morally wrong, because it kills a developing human, and the majority of abortions are made because of bad decisions.
In R3CON, CON's main argument seeks to prove that the total detriment to society due to banning abortions outweighs the wrongness of an abortion. He cites extensively from sources in order to prove his points, namely that people will perform unsafe abortions anyway - and that abortion access benefits society in numerous ways.
I weighed these arguments and decided that overall, CON's argument was more convincing because he outweighed PRO's arguments in terms of societal benefit (the standard on which laws are passed), and his arguments were also more relevant to the resolution; PRO focused on theoretical moral aspects, while CON focused on impacts in the real world.
Sources: Tied - CON used sources more extensively, but not enough to justify the point.
S/G: Tied
Conduct: According to the Voting Policy, "the disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty UNLESS there is reason to withhold it."
Although CON forfeited, PRO's conduct was worse. He first attempted to impose an arbitrary, never-agreed upon rule that forfeitures somehow caused the loss of a debate, and this was the only thing he said for the rest of the debate. This behavior is inherently against the spirit of debate - instead of trying to actually rebut CON's arguments (which he had two rounds to do), he tried to get an auto-win on a non-existent technicality.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AustinL0926 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains both point allocations, even citing the voting policy for the conduct point. The argument points are explained rather lightly, but sufficiently examine the points made in the debate and how they factored into the voter's decision.
**************************************************
My entire argument was about the legality on every part, idk what either of you are talking about.
And murder is illegal........
Nope, I used the legal definition of murder to define abortion as murder.
It was basically your entire argument too...
Because that was his WHOLE argument.
The main problem with your contention against RM's morality argument is that you did the exact same thing.
R1 QUOTE: "In the same way, it should be illegal to get an abortion, because it is morally wrong."
So why is only PRO allowed to use morality arguments?
Ok, well thank you anyways white flame.
I would just like everyone to know, that Con chose a very sly tactic to try and grab this debate. If anything, he should lose conduct points, because he barely responded in the first response, and forfeited in the second. Then in his third response he pulled out an argument that didn't even argue the legal point of abortion, just the moral point of it.
I would just like everyone to put this into consideration, while voting.
That would constitute a 50% forfeit rate and voters could vote against them without explanation. This debate had 5 rounds, only one of which Con forfeited. That’s a 20% forfeit rate, below the 40% threshold.
If you want to call RM out for deciding to put all of his arguments in R3 rather than presenting them up front to allow as much discussion of them as possible, that’s a different story. At that point you’re talking about tactics that hurt the debate, which voters can choose to award points for or not. The forfeit functions similarly - it’s a negative in the debate that voters can choose to see as point-worthy or not. They don’t automatically trigger a loss for him, though.
Such as your round 4 and 5
So, if someone decides to put 3 sentences in one of their arguments, and forfeits another one of their arguments, that will constitute for not enough.
If you defend homicide, it’s like defending rape; you’ve lost if that’s what you state.
Forfeiting a round is not nor has it ever been treated (at least not site-wide) as automatically forfeiting the debate. People have made rules that stipulate as much, many view it as an automatic loss of conduct, and losing a round is clearly detrimental if your opponent uses that round to further their argument. That’s it. If the opponent forfeits 40% or more of their rounds, that is often viewed as forfeiting the debate and rules surrounding votes on those debates are different as a result. The same does not apply here.
I'd bet 10-1 that the moderators aren't going to back you up.
Guys.....does no one on this website understand this concept.
The forfeit appliance on debates, is part of the debate. It's purpose is when someone does not answer quick enough, or doesn't answer at all, they automatically forfeit.
Just because no one said anything about forfeiture in the description, doesn't make forfeits not countable. They still count whether you agree with it or not. It's literally part of the debate. It does not need to be clarified in the description.
With the logic of "Well you didn't say that one forfeiture=loss in the description, so therefore I still am in the argument" I could forfeit any debate I want, then weeks later come up with an argument, and say it counts.
Could the moderators please back me up on this.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (arguments and conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
RM forfeited. Bad conduct.
Arguments: Pro asked Con to define to what extent he would make abortion illegal and Pro also argued not setting a standard for what it a legal and what isn’t is akin to defending homicide (which was actually a good point). Since Con didn’t define what abortions should be legal or illegal, it was akin to defending homicide (which nobody I met defends). Con made the arguments that people would get abortions illegally; people murder illegally. This means you prosecute them. But since Con didn’t state a definition for what abortions would be legal, it was defending homicide as Pro pointed out.
All of Con’s arguments to justify abortion can be used to justify homicide from what I skimmed.
I am left on certain issues, but I’m right now right wing on abortion.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter is allowed to interpret arguments based on what's required in the description, the voter is not allowed to then state that their decision based entirely on their own view of the merits (or lack thereof) in that argument. The voter must assess arguments presented by Pro that examine problems with Con's argument and not just assume that, because Con is endorses something this voter doesn't agree with, it fails.
**************************************************
I am allowed to defend homicide in a debate, your RFD doesn't hold up. I have reported it.
I’m pro life, but if you want abortion banned, how would you punish it? People would get abortions illegally if they were illegal, so you would need a punishment for abortion. Pro lifers say, “Go after the abortionist”, but if this happens, no abortionist would want to do abortions, meaning females are going to have to do their own abortions, so whatever penalty you would give to the abortionist you would also have to give to a female that gets an abortion.
There is a reason that the feature "forfeit" is there.
It's purpose is to forfeit a debate.
It's purpose isn't to apply it to a description to make forfeits active...…
They just already are in general.
"It is common knowledge that if you forfeit the set number of arguments without letting the person know that you are going to forfeit that round, is losing. "
What common knowledge?
.
YouFound_Lxam, that wants to be "Bible Dumber" than Miss Tradesecret,
YOUR QUOTE IN ROUND 1:
A lot of laws and regulations are based in morals.
For instance:
It is illegal to kill someone, because it is morally wrong.
It is illegal to steal, because it is morally wrong.
It is illegal to rape, because it is morally wrong.
In the same way, it should be illegal to get an abortion, because it is morally wrong.
.
QUESTION: Is it morally wrong for our Jesus as God, to outright MURDER innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies as He proposes in the book of Hosea, where Jesus as God gave Ephraim women miscarrying wombs and caused abortions, and if said babies were born and survived, Jesus as God would would SLAY their beloved children!
“The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)
.
You may BEGIN your answer to the above Biblical axiom:
.
I read the description and got a visual of a weatherperson saying "today in Los Angeles, Fetuses are falling from the skies."