Abortion is murder

What are you talking about!?! I had no bop here. This is not my debate. My issue with with whiteflame. There are four criteria for voting. He keeps demanding I meet them all and spell it out like Bella does. That’s ridiculous. Your vote didn’t meet any of those criteria, nor did Barney’s.

Please let me know what was wrong with my vote, You defined your argument as needing proof in the two parts. You only addressed one part. That does not meet the BoP. The vote has to be clear, not long.

My vote shows you did not address the concept of lawfulness as required by your definition of murder. Where did I make a mistake?

And you’re entitled to your opinion.

Have a nice day.

I don’t care if you volunteer to do this. If you can’t do it right the first time, you shouldn’t be doing it at all.

I never asked you to review all votes all the time, onky in relationship to those that are being reported by those acting like scorned little girls. Even if someone thinks it’s a legit report. It’s incumbent on you as the moderator accepting the task to compare the reported votes to others within said debate. If you take one down for cause A, and other votes lack cause A too, then you take them all down. If you can’t do the job right even as a volunteer, well maybe you shouldn’t be doing it at all then.

Thanks for affirming your hypocrisy.

Ps. I know votes can be removed post end of voting. I know you thought I wouldn’t know that. But I do. Since you’re willing to lie about that, just more piece of evidence that you shouldn’t be a moderator. You’re not honest and lack integrity.

PSs. You brought this on yourself. Resign. Or do the job correctly, volunteer or not. You have a responsibility and you’re just not doing it. Fact.

I'm not getting into this with you. This isn't a job for me, it's something I volunteer to do. What you're apparently demanding of me is that I look through a vast swath of votes regularly, including those that aren't reported, to see if removal is justified. I don't do that, and I don't plan on doing that. Just because you aren't happy about it doesn't mean I'm going to vastly expand the amount of work I'm doing to meet your criteria for what you believe moderators should be doing.

If you come to a debate to review votes, you should compare ALL the votes for meeting the same untenable criteria you keep hypocritically pushing on me and waisting my time with BUT upon no one else. And don’t come back with the Bs that you only look at votes that are reported and never comparing them to others not reported to see if the removal would be justified in relationship to the other votes. Cause if that’s what you do, you should not be a moderator.

Well, then you didn't give me much lead time to make a call, did you? I don't spend every waking hour on this site, so if you want me to address votes you've reported, try to give me more time to look at them. I'm not going to evaluate votes that are locked in because the voting period has ended.

“ think my vote explanation is very clear. Where did I err?”

~ you didn’t fulfill all the standard criteria whiteflame keeps demanding from me, over and over and over again as he/she keeps deleting my far more detailed votes than yours for BS reasons.

At the time I asked it wasn’t ended. Hypocrite.

I think my vote explanation is very clear. Where did I err?

Thats a poor vote.
Pro is trying to do something
Con doesn't provide anything until the end

Pro probably got tired of behavior they did not expect or wanted

I'm not sure why you're asking me to do the impossible. I cannot remove votes from debates that have already finished.

You better remove Barney and Slainte’s votes. They don’t explain anything that would meet your targeted standards being placed upon me.

And the legibility category is null and void. They typed. Letters can be seen. Done. Until the powers that be either change it to spelling & grammar or something more accurate than the inaccurate term presently used, no one can justify it one way or the other.

I mean really, I put more thought into my votes and Barney and slainte (?) did not. If you don’t remove their votes, you demonstrate hypocrisy and a clear bias directed at me.

@Devon

“ Lmao whatever makes me feel better huh? I should say that to you. ”

~ how cute. The “I know you are, but what am I” childish retort.

Someone is clearly protesting too much. Lol 😂

"display a little humility but most of all, a lot of integrity. To date you’ve demonstrated neither to anyone here."
Lol and you think you have? Please

Lmao whatever makes me feel better huh? I should say that to you. What I'm saying is facts. Never once was I shown being prideful. If anything it's you because you can never admit when you're wrong. Humility and integrity? Sorry I don't bow down and kiss someone's ass after I'm blatantly disrespected. I don't have anything to prove anything to you, I don't know you or give a flying fuck about you and you don't know me. You do know this is the internet right? See the difference between me and you is I live in reality, not the internet. I cannot come back on this site anymore starting tomorrow and not give a shit. You live off of this and don't have a life. Debating since '95 huh? A year before I was born. Yikes. You should be the last one talking about humility and integrity when you piss everyone on this website off because your attitude sucks. If you were positive on here then that'd be different.

@devon

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself; you’re still an intellectual coward. Always will be until you can swallow your pride and display a little humility but most of all, a lot of integrity. To date you’ve demonstrated neither to anyone here.

Sure it wasn't personal. "in no world could you ever prove it" just like you can't ever prove all the lies and bs you've said about me. Like I said I didn't need you to sugarcoat anything but it came off personal. Your tone was rude and condescending but your second RFD was the complete opposite as it was professional. You never gave constructive criticism, please know the difference between that and being flat out disrespectful.

My bad, I assumed being that I was mentioned and a few remarks. Nevermind.

I think your idea of criticizing is a bit different but it's alright. I wasn't completely concerned with it anyways.

@Devon

“ Definitely was personal…”

~ No, it wasn’t and in no world could you ever prove it. It’s all in your mind, your weak kind.

“…and I don't need you to sugarcoat anything.”

~ given your scorned little girl profane responses, clearly you do.

“Last thing I am is weak”

~ When it comes to interpersonal communication and taking constructive criticism maturely, yea, you are weak.

Definitely was personal and I don't need you to sugarcoat anything. Last thing I am is weak. Have a good day

He got vote-bombed in his first debate, so he’s seeking revenge. So he created a debate where he is defending child marriage, and he’s lashing out at everyone because they don’t agree with him.

What’s w it h tiger lord? Does he have an axe to grind or he just enjoys trolling the votes and reporting them blindly, as you suggested.

Dear, I never said anything about you. My comment was directly directed at @Devon.

And no, it was not unreasonable. It was direct constructive criticism without sugarcoating it.

He tends to mass-report votes anyway without looking at them. So if it was deleted, it was just collateral.

It was tigerlord who reported your vote btw.
Just confirmed by the mod chat.

Wow, don't come starting with me now. I'm sure the mods disagreed when your vote was removed? So, yes, it was unreasonable. At least for this website in general. There's my proof.

If you read my entire thing, I said I skimmed and skipped. I didn't cry or whine over it, I just didn't care.

If anything, your acting like a child even commenting defensively on something that was in no way attacking you.

@devin
Cry some more, child.
My vote wasn’t personal. I have no personal stake any any of these debates, forum discussions or these comments. I gave a non-sugar coated (which is clear you needed the sugar), direct analysis of the ridiculously short subjectively opinionated debate without beating around the bush. Boo hoo you didn’t like it and are so weak you let my criticism hurt you(rself).

Yeah and I know I lost I'm not saying pick me as the winner it's just the fact of his RFD being unnecessary. I have no issue with constructive criticisms if it's coming from a genuine place instead of a personal place. His vote was blatantly rude and he knows it and he wants to act dumb like it wasn't. I'm just ignoring him from now on. I honestly shouldn't have even let his RFD affect me to where I responded like that, could've ignored it and I regret that I gave you the same impression as TWS. I used to argue with people on this site all the time but now I'm trying to change, I don't wanna keep arguing

"Abortions are never deliberate, they are contemplated, and a choice is made"
Not always the case. Everyone doesn't belong in the same box. It's some women who just got pregnant and already made up their mind of having the abortion, I know someone like that. So no there's no "oh let me think about it" sure, some cases that happens but not all the time. Some women unfortunately go into the situation of getting pregnant knowing beforehand that they will get an abortion, no contemplation. So yes they are deliberate whether or not they contemplated. Just because they contemplated doesn't mean when they go through with the abortion it makes it not deliberate, because they went through with it. I forgot to respond to that point you said, other than that I'm done now forreal with the back and forth. Now I see why a lot of people can't stand you on here.

Clap clap!
Way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt your intellectual cowardice.

Easy to claim my vote was unreasonable, harder to prove. Either way. It’s not for you to bitch about in the comments like the other two. You’re suppose to learn from the constructive criticism. Not cry wolf about it, especially when none of you can prove the criticism indefensible.

Children. The whole lot of yiu.

Hilarious. You somehow surpassed even the worst of my expectations and quite literally did the opposite lol.
Well, maintaining a respectful and civil tone in discussions especially as such is important. Such personal attacks, confrontational language, and projection do not contribute to a productive exchange of ideas. You may keep such to yourself as neither I, and I believe, nor anyone else here cares for them.

Love and Peace. :)

Yeah. The vote was unnecessary.

Personally, I skim votes. If I find it unreasonable, I'll skip it and move on. If in what I read seems elaborate I'll read it and use it as reference. Such as TWS1405_2 vote on my debate, it was unreasonable. I didn't report it, but I moved on and didn't comment. I wasn't gonna argue about something that really didn't factor into voting. (I already knew I lost, it would've been a bit different if it was mixed votes).

"I would like to suggest that it would be prudent to read in full before trying to retort so you have a comprehensive understanding and fully grasp what is being communicated. This will help facilitate a more effective and meaningful exchange."

Practice what you preach. Intellectual coward that you so clearly are.

You proved nothing contrary to that which I corrected you upon.

I would like to suggest that it would be prudent to read in full before trying to retort so you have a comprehensive understanding and fully grasp what is being communicated. This will help facilitate a more effective and meaningful exchange.
"The categorical designation of being a member of the species homo sapiens is merely a biological classification; but there is more meaning to the term human being, as noted above and throughout this response."
I'll address this statement and those above it from here.
You argue that being a person is equivalent to being a human being above this statement particularly, but this is an oversimplification and this your statement here demonstrates that.
Your reliance on layman's definitions does not capture the nuances involved in deeper discussions on personhood. That "more meaning". In ethical and philosophical discussions, personhood can involve additional criteria beyond biological membership in the Homo sapiens species. This is where (and why) the separation was made.
Regarding the definition of personhood, your provided definition aligns with the concept I previously described. Personhood refers to the state or condition of being a person, possessing qualities that confer distinct individuality. (I'll help even more a bit here, please notice how this definition is not the same thing as the definition even you have of being a human being - not saying they are exclusive.)
"Wrong. Definition: human being..."
Regarding the definition of a human being, the definition you provided also aligns with the biological concept I described. Honestly, did you read that definition? I think you did, anyway. That's where underneath, you had to add that there's the biological concept and the "more meaning". You've now separated the definition of human being you gave, the biological concept, from the "more meaning". That "more meaning" is a philosophical and ethical concept.

"There is nothing subjective about..."
It's not the biological concept we're talking about here. Different philosophical and ethical perspectives can vary in their criteria for personhood, considering factors like consciousness, self-awareness, and moral agency. These subjective determinations can lead to debates and differing views on the moral status and rights of certain individuals or entities. I talked about this in my first comment here.

"Wrong. It is factually..."
...still incorrect. A fetus is a human being in its embryonic stage. It is a stage of human development in the womb, and biologically, it possesses the genetic makeup and characteristics of a human being. While it is still developing and dependent on the mother for survival, its humanity is not in question. Denying this fact is not supported by scientific evidence.

"Nowhere in that statement do I qualify a fetus with any such qualifier..."
I didn't say that. I said you qualify "human being" with "already born" directly alluding to the fact that a human being is not necessarily already born, hence the need for the qualifier. Ironically, you're the one with such a strawman as you described here.

Thank you and I hope this meets you in good fate!
Deon

WHAT IS GOING ON

😂😂😂

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro begins by some factually inaccurate definitions, which will inevitably convolute the progression of the debate. For example, "A fetus is still a human, a clump of cells and abortion is premeditated." While a biologically and physiologically developing fetus is human in origin, it is neither [a] human (being) or [a] clump of cells. Said definition is directly contradictory to well-established and common knowledge scientific definitions of what a human fetus factually is. As I said in my previous vote, that Pro took issue with, remains factually accurate. Begin a debate on a false premise, your conclusion will be equally false.

Pro then states: "There are certain parts of the country where abortion is illegal. Murder is also illegal so without a doubt abortion is murder." This too is factually incorrect. RvW was only recently overturned; therefore, the standing law for 50 years is what truly needs to be debated, not the incredibly fluctuating political environment that is different from state to state over the past 10-12 months. Also, murder is illegal in every state, abortion is not. So, "without a doubt" abortion =/= murder in every state, let alone every conceivable situation.

Citing other countries where an abortion is illegal for a debate centered on US standards, laws and culturally based morality (without clarifying otherwise in the description/parameters of the debate) is nothing short of a red herring fallacy. It's a whataboutism argument.

Pro's entire argument is wholeheartedly subjective: "No matter how one looks at it, abortion is murder. The science of embryology states that from the moment of conception, a human being is formed." No, science states that at the moment of conception the very basic biological criteria for (cellular) life is met. A cell =/= a human being, commonly understood and referred to as a born person/individual, not a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and/or fetus.

Con's rebuttal here is simple, short, sweet and to the obvious point: "Here is where I agree with Pro, that conception is the beginning of life. But it’s not life in the conventional sense. The fetus at this point has more in common with a cell than a fully grown human being or even a newborn. It hasn’t advanced to the point that we can refer to it as a ‘person.’" Con draws the obvious distinction whereas Pro keeps muddying the waters with incoherent jargon and dots that should never be connected.

Given the observable clear lack of knowledge of the subject on the part of Pro, Con really didn't have much to debate/rebut with. Con replied with common sense, but more importantly, common knowledge (which does not require any citations, precisely because it is, "common").

Each provided one cited source, Pro's was irrelevant to the debate at hand whereas Con's was on point.

Con prevails, for obvious (and stated) reasons.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the vote is much improved, justifying both Arguments and Sources, the voter does not explain their reasoning for awarding Conduct or Legibility.
**************************************************

No one knows who you are as well. Especially in a thousand years or so. The universe doesn’t give a crap about you or your feelings.

Nobody knows who you are.
Keep talking like you’re worth anything.

You’re a clown; just admit it already. What an inferior person. Along with @SirLancelot.

How sad. I deleted my replies to them. I'm done here, I'm not with the foolishness. Not giving this anymore energy. This will be my last comment on here. Sorry to anyone who sees this back and forth. Hate it got out of hand like that.

That's quick.

Moderator just confirmed that they’re both alts of one individual

Check your dm’s real quick

You’re not getting dogpiled, despite what it looks like.

These are multiple accounts by one person trying to create the illusion that it’s multiple people.

Thanks and you're right I could have elaborated more. Just been super busy and not having the time or passion for it so the arguments were relatively short. But at least the debate is over. Can't wait for this to die down because it's sad how I'm literally getting ganged up on for no reason

Hey Devon, I’m new here and just by reading all the comments in this debate I could just tell that you’re a confused individual. I agree with @TWS1405_2 and @BinaryPegasus’s evaluation of your unfortunate character. It’s hilarious how virtually everyone (including me) concurs with the conclusion that you are acting quite childish.

Firstly, If you don’t give a f*** about the comments then you wouldn’t care what they have to say. The irony in your statements is killing me lol. You’re such an ignorant and overall stupid person. You are the epitome of a idiot to be explicit. I can hardly picture you making a useful contribution to society; your existence is meaningless and obscure and I bet you know it. Oh wait I forgot, your an idiot. ;)

In his (pro's) defense, his arguments were good. All around it just needed some more elaboration, from both sides. If pro would've attacked con's main argument that "they behave more like cells" and correctly argued it, it would've been different. I would've voted for him if that was addressed more but he forfieted.

Not sure if it was just me that saw this in a different eye than everyone else that voted.

Oh look, another clown joined a circus. I really don't give a fuck about anything you say lmfao. I don't know you, you don't know me. Keep it pushing. It's honestly not even that deep. I'm done arguing with TWS1405_2 and here you go....now I gotta put another peasant in the trash. Yes I'm really 27. How old are you? I'm super curious because the way YOU'RE behaving right now shows teen behavior to me. I know exactly how to control my emotions, do you? You clearly don't as you're so upset jumping in something that doesn't have anything to do with you. A truly mature person would've ignored this but you're also seek attention, drama and validation. Gotta love strangers on the internet wanting to paint a picture acting as if they know someone personally off of words on the internet. I was disrespected first so of course I'm going to defend myself. I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings so bad that I didn't act nice and kiss his ass lol. Have a good day.

After reading your ridiculously short and banal arguments in this particular debate, it is patently clear that you really do lack the requisite knowledge to properly defend your arguments, despite your claims stating that you are well versed on this subject matter. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect at play here. I would strongly recommend you to take a course on logic and reasoning since you’re obviously deficient in these areas; along with a quick google search on how to control your emotions. Are you really in your 20s? Judging from your comments, you act like a teenager with an under developed prefrontal cortex.