Instigator / Con
9
1500
rating
12
debates
45.83%
won
Topic
#5948

Abortion should be banned.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

vi_777
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFV
Due to title saying saying banned, rather than regulated, I interpret goalposts as vi_777 arguing for abortion being banned in all cases.
I additionally take this view as vi_777 did not address McMieky arguments on High Risk Situationals.

Neither side included sources.
Both sides legible.
Conduct to Pro for Con forfeit of a round.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

McMieky offered solutions to societal imbalances argued by vi_777.
McMieky missing the vi_777 unborn value arguments by vi_777, hurt McMieky, but only slightly as vi_777 was not explicit or in depth with it.
The question of society value vs individual value in debate is inconclusive.
vi_777 missing or avoiding McMieky arguments on High Risk Situations that may call for abortion are what pushes me to vote for McMieky.
Further RFV in comments 8 and 9 of debate.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con:
Very tough debate, con argue about banning abortion, it would have been better if he would claim that abortion should be banned partially. What he was claiming, it would be better to ban it partially because it seems the stance of con in debate.
He argued about that some pregnancies are dangerous to carry. It's true, but tbh honest endangered pregnancies abort on its own most of times.
And abortion should be allowed in that case which I think is good point from con.

Pro:
A lot of good arguemnts.
1
Fetus also feels pain, while we protect animals right to not be harmed then how come infant human life and pain felt by him is not important to considered.
2
When wanted pregnancy is ends is tradegy then how come unwanted is not? In both cases a human soul is lost.
3
If someone is physically or financially unstable then adoption and government care is available so this should not be concerned.
4
Male partner should also have say as he is parent too.
5
Physiological impact of killing your own baby. Probably becuse or guilt. A good arguemnt.
It suggest a person kills her own child.

Conclusion:
It's very hard but I would give to pro, if con would have argued about partial ban and not allowing it all together he could win easily . While it seems the case which con was defending.