Instigator / Pro

Pevensie

1500

rating

debates

56.25%

won

Topic

#4735

Abortion is always immoral.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 5 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

Abortion

Parameters

Publication date: 07.18.2023 10:18PM
Last updated date: 07.26.2023 12:06AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 1,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Best.Korea

1271

rating

354

debates

39.83%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Pevensie

07.18.2023 10:39PM

Pro

Definitions:

Abortion is the termination of of pregnancy. Immoral describes an action that violates the natural law, which is instituted by God.

Argument:

The Didache states "You shall not procure (an]) abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (2:1–2).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church banns all abortions.

Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalms 139:13 affirm that the unborn are humans and, therefore, abortion violates Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

Since religion articulates that abortion is always immoral and religion is the exclusive authority on morality, abortion is always immoral.

Best.Korea

07.18.2023 11:01PM

Con

Immoral means that it causes evil.

Pain is evil.

Abortion doesnt cause pain.

Abortion prevents pain and all the other evils person would have to experience during life.

Abortion is morally necessary.

Child birth is murder and torture, since by giving birth to a child, you are causing that child to be tortured and die.

Will he get run over by a car? Be raped? Be murdered? Commit suicide? Die painfully from cancer? Be bullied? Be beaten up? Be depressed? Will he be a rapist? Will he end up in prison?

I hope you dont actually expect a child to thank you for putting him through that. I certainly dont thank my parents.

In fact, waking up from eternal darkness into the world of pain that will last for 80 years, only to return to eternal darkness again... I would have preffered to stay in eternal darkness. No pain there.

Life, on the other hand, is pain. Causing person pain is wrong. Causing a person to live is wrong.

Happiness doesnt outweight the pain, nor should we hurt people so that we are happy.

Round 2

Pevensie

07.18.2023 11:21PM

Pro

My opponent's argument from Round 1 contains two monumental errors.

First, the notion that all pain is evil is wrong. St. Paul clearly states suffering can be a moral good. He writes:

Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Romans 5:3-5 ESV)

Second, my opponent states:

Life, on the other hand, is pain. Causing person pain is wrong. Causing a person to live is wrong.

Arguing that not living is better than living is self-evidently wrong. Although every human will experience pain and many humans will mistreat other humans. living is superior to not living since life is a gift from God. To quote U.S. Senator Ted Cruz:

I believe every human life is a gift from God and we should cherish and protect and celebrate them. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cruz-refuses-answer-personhood-during-msnbc-town-hall)

Furthermore, since life is a gift from God and all gifts from God are good, life is good.

Best.Korea

07.18.2023 11:38PM

Con

I didnt know that I was arguing against the Bible.

Anyway.

All pain is evil.

Consider the following scenario.

You have to endure eternity in greatest pain. However, you can press the button to stop living and simply die and stop feeling pain forever.

Everyone will press that button.

Same scenario applies to life in general. Life is not a gift. Its torture.

You get tortured and you die. What kind of a gift is that? Better not give people such gifts.

If God is good, why does he allow evil?

Good God by definition wouldnt allow evil. Good God would create perfect humans, not flawed ones. How come perfect God created a world full of death and torture? Would you create such world if you were God?

If you saw a drowning child, would God expect you to save it?

Why doesnt God save it? Cant bother?

Anyway.

Life doesnt outweight pain. Pain outweights everything. Abortion saves a child from pain, sending that child and that child's child and the entire line of offsprings straight to heaven. Cant get better

Round 3

Pevensie

07.19.2023 12:00AM

Pro

Sadly, my opponent's argument contains many errors.

First, any debate concerned with morality is religious per se. My opponent is welcome to cite any religious source.

Second, the scenario of having to endure the greatest possible pain for eternity sounds like the definition of Hell. Furthermore, aborted infants, according to Dante's Inferno, go to Hell since they have not been baptized (Inferno Canto IV. lines 33-42). Therefore, abortion results in causing the victim (aborted infants) to have to endure the greatest possible pain for eternity with no magic button to escape.

Third, C.S. Lewis explains why God allows evil to occur.

God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. (Mere Christianity Book II. Chapter 3)

Best.Korea

07.19.2023 12:06AM

Con

aborted infants, according to Dante's Inferno, go to Hell since they have not been baptized

What a great and loving religion lmao

Sending infants to hell. I mean, are you sure that your God is not mentally ill?

any debate concerned with morality is religious

No. We just proved that religion has no morality.

Barney

07.22.2023 06:29AM

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

Null vote.
**************************************************

Lemming

07.21.2023 07:21PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pevensie R1
Hm, going with strict Bible wording,
I'd expect Con to focus on the debate title use of the word 'Always,
I'd expect Con then to argue for exceptions,
Which Pro might argue are still immoral actions just less immoral,
Which Con might argue less immoral means moral action in context.

Or Con look to see if passages in Bible contradict, passages used by Pevensie.

Best.Korea R1
Hm, going with the being born is evil argument, unusual.

Pevensie R2
Argues pain can be good.
That might stand, depending on whether Best.Korea can argue 'all pain is bad.

Nonexistent being can't really be better or worse, as it doesn't exist,
Existent being, might think itself better or worse, being existent or non.

Best.Korea R2
Eh, I wouldn't say that Best.Korea is arguing against the Bible 'quite,
Ja Pevensie is using Bible to support their arguments, but description and title don't say using the Bible as a standard.

Best.Korea argues everyone would 'eventually commit suicide,
That 'might be true,
But I'm not sure if that's because life is not worth it,
Or because life was not worth it to 'that person in 'that moment.

Eh, life being torture or gift, subjective perhaps.

Best.Korea arguments on existence of evil, not fully fleshed out.

Pevensie R3
Eh, religous is vague wide word, some might argue from their view such as game theory their arguments are not religious.
Isn't Dante's Inferno fiction?

Aborted babies go to Hell?
Hell is greatest possible pain?
Booo, boo Pevensie, boo,
Eh, I'm an Atheist anyway.

Free Will argument 'is one some people use for existence of evil.

Best.Korea R3
Get's a bit off topic.

Second Reading
Hm, Pevensieargues abortion is immoral due to Bible 'statement claims,
No logic or 'explanation,
Just authority appeal.
BUT Best.Korea doesn't 'address this.

Best.Korea argues 'any pain as evil, and evil outweighing good,
Lays it on a bit thick.

Pevensie relies heavily on blanket claims by others,
A problem for Best.Korea in arguments though, Is that they are not 'addressing this.
While Pevensie 'does address and make argument against Best.Korea claims of all life is pain/bad.
Best.Korea all life is pain/torture/bad, is not fully fleshed out,

Though I'm inclined to vote for Pevensie,
I don't think they. . . No, that's my own thoughts, Best.Korea 'doesn't address Pevensie's use of appeal to authority,
While Pevensie 'does address Best.Korea's claims that being born is evil.

RFV
Pevensie's appeal to athority is allowed to stand, and they are able to undercut Best.Korea's arguments that being born is evil,
Appeal to Authority convincing for some people, don't speed sign says, some people obey because sign said so, no other reason, people 'could 'think on 'why though, and whether authority in X case is valid, but Best.Korea did not argue against Pevensie's appeal to authority.

Best.Korea laying on being born as complete evil, makes it easier to knock down,
Though 'maybe Best.Korea could have strengthened this argument, word count was restrictive of Best.Korea being able to do this.

Arguements Pevensie, though both sides did poorly in my view.
Sources, addressing source validity is part of argument, not sources itself, because someone said so, someone elses argument, I don't rate highly as 'sources, but instead lend weight more towards a person 'explaining their own arguments.
Sources a tie, since, I don't view Pevensie's as strong sources, and Best.Korea used none.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite enough.

Barney

07.21.2023 05:12PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This debate really needed a description stating it was to be from a purely religious perspective.

Con does a fun argument that life is pain, pro counters that pain is a gift from God and that God will torture any abortion victim for all eternity for the sin of having been aborted… Con questions the mental state of said God, leaving pros own arguments implying that God is evil.

Sources to pro for incredible depth of research, even if it was used against him.

Slainte

07.20.2023 10:17PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

An easy read. Pro states abortion is immoral because it is evil as God prescribes. Pro then states that evil is available because of free will. Pro then states that aborted babies, or effectively any baby that is not baptized go to hell. Con points out this huge conflict, and states if God allows for infants to go to hell, there is a question of morality. Con does not tie a ribbon on the debate but does show a blatant failure in Pros logic. Pro used searchable references in most rounds and wins that regard.

Average_Person

07.19.2023 02:18PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This entire debate happened within 90 minutes.

Interesting.

I'll analyze this round by round.

R1:
Pro provides definitions, and cites bible. However Pro also makes the broad generalization "religion is the exclusive authority on morality" with no proof of that at all.
Con shows multiple scenarios where abortion may be necessary (If I can count correctly, 10).

R2:
Pro cites bible (2x). And cites ted cruz to argue not living is better than living, only using a quote with minimal explanation/reasoning...
Con shows two scenarios where not living may be better than living.

R3:
Pro: "First, any debate concerned with morality is religious per se.". This is certainly moving the goalpost, but I can't really tell if it moves the goalpost for arguments, or for sources (e.g. suddenly restricting sources to only religious sources). Either way, it is still a logical fallacy. Also he cites Inferno and Mere Christianity. Keep in mind one is fiction and one is an authors opinion. Again, with no explanation, simply citing a source.
Con refutes morality through contradiction and acknowledges pro had moved the goalpost of the debate from "abortion is always immoral" to "religion is moral" (him arguing con, of course).

ok now time for voting.

Args: You can't just cite a source and expect that to be an argument. You actually need explanation. Not only that, you also can't move the BOP/debate through moving the goalpost. Pro did these two, so points to CON for delivering justified args (and not moving the goalpost).

Src: I guess pro used sources, while con didn't use any. Although not really used correctly, still points to pro on that.

leg: ok on both

cond: ok on both

final:
A: con
S: pro
L: tie
C: tie

Intelligence_06

07.19.2023 02:09AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro opened up with a preset that I think could be described with the term "laughable". Just look at it. "Abortion is the termination of of pregnancy. Immoral describes an action that violates the natural law, which is instituted by God." By this definition, all cases of birth would also be abortions since, well, the pregnancy is terminated because it ended.

Both sides did not agree on it possibly but also did not touch on the definition again, achieving nothing.