Report on Abortion should be illegal in nearly all cases
Before persualling pro and con arguments , this statement seems easier for pro than con. However , I think both contestants have strong abilities so let’s go .
Content :
1. Round 1:Patoms
2.
1.1 Patoms
Basic assumption and definition as an introduction
Directly declare his following argument will be based on scientific and philosophical.
Point out the definition of life so that ,unless opponent objects the definition, the impression of abortion will directly be associated with killing babies .
Pro uses syllogism to proof zygote is actually a living human being. You based on a sturdy theory and precisely point out zygote is a living cell based on the posit foundations you made. This presumption will be a hefty burden to your opponent if he doesn't oppose this premise.
Rebuttal : My body my choice
pro points out the misconception of the general public : a fetus is a part of a woman’s body .
Rebuttal point : This argument displays basic scientific illiteracy.
Pro provides another assumption which part of your body is defined as DNA part and non DNA part. Though this assumption is beneficial to pro but too many definitions may cause others to notice the definition is biased. ( I haven’t read the sources if the definition are from authoritative source I would apologise for it )
Pro continues his proof established through logical thinking which consequently achieve the conclusion : distinct from both the mother and the father this argument can be shown to be scientifically invalid.
The philosophical prong
Start by rebuttal
Pro begins by saying the general public think“Well , the fetus may be a human being , but they’re not a human person. “
Pro provides questions to raise the reader’s curiosity about how you will rebuttal these points. Including why then has personhood been conferred
Using Granny as a metaphor to prove heartbeat never could be an indicator of life.
Successfully inferences readers to think the general public assumptions are inconsistent.
Well elaboration and deduction , but better rebuttal the questions you set. Else the con could use those questions as a foundation of attacking. Con could actually point out the line between philosophical and scientific are ambiguous which all assumptions should be redefined. This would be catastrophic for pro.
Umm I really don't mind you vote pro or con . But serious would you mind to point out some serious spelling mistake or grammatical mistake ?
Umm but the definition should be based on the description only if the description has marked it
Do you dare to accept this challenge
Ok than more beneficial if you take this challenge
I am really busy I will just give up next round
Opps sorry I am a beginner thanks for advice haha
Haha haven't finish but just take a look anything you don't agree
Report on Abortion should be illegal in nearly all cases
Before persualling pro and con arguments , this statement seems easier for pro than con. However , I think both contestants have strong abilities so let’s go .
Content :
1. Round 1:Patoms
2.
1.1 Patoms
Basic assumption and definition as an introduction
Directly declare his following argument will be based on scientific and philosophical.
Point out the definition of life so that ,unless opponent objects the definition, the impression of abortion will directly be associated with killing babies .
Pro uses syllogism to proof zygote is actually a living human being. You based on a sturdy theory and precisely point out zygote is a living cell based on the posit foundations you made. This presumption will be a hefty burden to your opponent if he doesn't oppose this premise.
Rebuttal : My body my choice
pro points out the misconception of the general public : a fetus is a part of a woman’s body .
Rebuttal point : This argument displays basic scientific illiteracy.
Pro provides another assumption which part of your body is defined as DNA part and non DNA part. Though this assumption is beneficial to pro but too many definitions may cause others to notice the definition is biased. ( I haven’t read the sources if the definition are from authoritative source I would apologise for it )
Pro continues his proof established through logical thinking which consequently achieve the conclusion : distinct from both the mother and the father this argument can be shown to be scientifically invalid.
The philosophical prong
Start by rebuttal
Pro begins by saying the general public think“Well , the fetus may be a human being , but they’re not a human person. “
Pro provides questions to raise the reader’s curiosity about how you will rebuttal these points. Including why then has personhood been conferred
Using Granny as a metaphor to prove heartbeat never could be an indicator of life.
Successfully inferences readers to think the general public assumptions are inconsistent.
Well elaboration and deduction , but better rebuttal the questions you set. Else the con could use those questions as a foundation of attacking. Con could actually point out the line between philosophical and scientific are ambiguous which all assumptions should be redefined. This would be catastrophic for pro.
Give me a a few days I can vote as well
Opps gg well play my typo damn
Ok then i shift you join pls
Then I be con
Actually this question is quite difficult to find source for me. As what I could do is let the question to be ethical issue but not practical.