Instigator / Pro
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Topic
#4961
Abortion is the killing of an innocent fetus
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Definitions:
Abortion is defined as killing of a fetus.
Innocent is defined as didnt commit any crime intentionally. Future crimes are excluded from this definition.
These definitions cannot be changed. Never never never.
Burden of proof is on Con to disprove the topic in every case of abortion. If he fails to prove that every abortion is not the killing of an innocent fetus in every single case of abortion, he loses.
How do you get qualifications to vote. Do I have to do a certain amount of debates?
Perhaps go after the definition of "fetus", "innocence" and "intention"?
Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure I know of a fun strategy to win though. It would likely be a boring win.
FYI, you’ve accepted a trap debate. They can be navigated and won, but they will be frustrating.
"By the same standard, all tools used to perform a rare surgical abortion of innocent of that."
This debate has nothing to do with tools. Even if tools are innocent of committing abortion, it still stands that abortion happened and the innocent fetus was killed.
Of course, the burden of proof is on Con to prove that either abortions never happen either that in every case of abortion, fetus was guilty of intentionally committing a crime, excluding future crimes.
I guess Con can argue that fetus committed crimes in past life.
That's advice for the first round of the debate, not a site rule that overrides the description of the debate. Favorable definitions are allowed. That said, pretty much anything can be kritiked, but voters are likely to default to the rules and definitions set in the description.
See “absurd special rules”:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
If something is incapable of intent, then innocence (per your definition) is moot.
By the same standard, all tools used to perform a rare surgical abortion of innocent of that.
This debate may appeal to you.
You cannot debate definitions. The debating happens once you agree to given definitions.
Yes!
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
no.
Definitions must be validated by an authoritative source....always, always, always.
Kicking a pregnant woman is a crime.
Your definitions make this a truism.