Total votes: 8
Pro ff thats poor conduct
lol another full forfeit
Full forfeit
Complete tie
Con avoided and ignored many of pro's rebuttals including,
" Christian ideology is not necessarily inconsistent because it is an evolving ideology with numerous interpretations and versions at play. "
- Pro already answered this question before with the fact that Hitler's and Stalin's ideology can be interpreted as well.
" You just lost all your arguments, the vast majority of Christians do not condone anything you accuse them of therefor I win."
- Pro already proved to why this isn't the case, since if Christians follow an inconsistent book. this makes them ignorant as well as the Bible harmful to society.
Con actually NEVER rebutted any of Pro's points at all and instead kept on spoiting the same none sense pro alredy refuted
" not the bundle of paper and ink sitting on your shelf which has no inherent effect on anything."
- Once again pro already refuted this claim by citing that technically stalin and hitler had no inherent affect on anything either since they never committed the acts themselves
to summarize con initially tried to attempt semantics which pro rebutted and con overlooked and ignored several of pros reuttels and because of this convinving arguments goes to pro, all other points tied although i am tempted to award sources to pro
ok so I just read the rules for voting and they seem pretty straightforward. I am kinda on the pro side so i may be a tad bias however regardless here's my vote.
Reliable sources should go to pro since one of Cons youtube sources was bias on the subject due to it being created by a religious person who is a known liar, and his other sources he didnt incorporate into his arguments very much partularly with the abortions causing psychological issues argument.. Although I did like the way he sited them by numbering them. con also didnt provide a source about how the majority of abortions happen after 5 months which is a common fact amoung the medical community. They also didn't provide any statistical data to back up the 1 % argument used during the debate.
Conduct goes to Pro since Con avoided the questions pro asked. for example, pro asked " So you would rather see a young girl be raped and be forced to give birth to a fetus which may or may not damage her physically and mentally than to see an organism that most likely isn't sentient yet to be terminated?" And than all con said was pull a red herring and start talking about how the baby shouldn't be punished. pro very obviously put con inside of a trap so con pulled a red herring. Cons over abundence of red herrings on the name the trait argument and the safety net argument by talking about completely unrelated stuff to pros questions and using the red herrings to dodge questions during the debate is very poor conduct on cons part. Not only this but Pro established very clearly in his opening argument that all religious arguments will not be allowed, however than at one point con stated that " The purpose of life is to be found in existence itself. Depriving someone of such a pursuit is equivalent to a universal sin." Here Con is using an appeal to religious morality argument which is poor conduct since pros rules strictly prohibeted these types of arguments.
In short, Pro caught con in several different corners and con resorted to pulling red herrings to dodge the questions, and broke the rules which very obviously bad conduct.
Arguments easily goes to pro. Pro kept debunked cons argument on existence by talking about how " are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?," con never answered this question. what was even funnier was seeing con in the comment section trying to squirm away from the question lol. con also conceeded on safety nets by agreeing to pros statement. all and all this was a pretty poor debate on cons part, as pro stated in the debate that the way society works is " legal until proven illegal," con didnt provide any good reason to outlaw abortion aside from a few contexts. Pro also provided his position clearly in the debate with " I've stated my argument already, my argument is that abortion is moral if the mother became pregnant outside of her control IE rape, the condom broke, or birth control failed, or if it's in the first 5 months before the baby becomes sentient. " Con NEVER clarified his position at all throughout the debate and due to this, his argument was very difficult to understand. On that note Con contradicted his points by stating that " Ok so then if your main value of life is in existence and NOT on sentience nor intelligence, are you against people unintentionally killing micro bacteria cells daily, mothers not fertilizing eggs, or men masturbating and their sperms cease to exist as a result?
I said the meaning of life is to be found in existence; not that existence is the meaning of life." Here Con contradicts his statements by stating that existence is to be found in the meaning of life but is not the meaning. Con here also avoids pros underlieing question which is the name the trait question. A question Con claims they answered but never actually answered during the debate, not only is this poor conuduct, but also a very poorly structured argument since it shows that Cons argument is logically inconsistent and pro even points it out by stating that COn would have to be in favor of micro bacteria rights and inanimate object rights.
lol con ff every round. Dear god...
ummmm this was kinda lame, pro forfeited everything