I am again ignoring Con’s last argument since it isn’t fair to Pro. I simply fail to see the real evidence on Con’s part that the woman is a slave, since Pro pointed out that they knew what they were getting into. Point to Pro because of a lack of evidence on Con’s part.
Pro: 4
Con: 2
Pro gets arguments.
Sources: I heard that you don’t have to vote a specific side in all categories if you don’t want to, and I’m SO SLEEPY right now, and it probably wouldn’t make a difference anyway, so tied.
Point 1: Con says that a woman can suffer from many things following pregnancy, and also that Pro ignores the possibility that a mother could die unless the baby is aborted before birth. Pro points out that the pregnant women are aware of the bad effects, and that he is ok with abortion for ectopic pregnancies. He also says that abortions carry health risks. Con says that many women can't be aware because most pregnancies are unplanned, and he also points out that abortion health problems are rare. He says that Pro never mentioned ectopic pregnancies at first in his exception list, as well as the fact that Pro must be supporting carrying stillbirths to full term. Pro says that they are aware because they know what happens when they sleep with someone. He points out that Con is just picking at a minor detail he forgot in the description for ectopic pregnancies, and that stillbirth abortions are not actually abortions since the fetus is dead.
I'm ignoring Con's response because it's completely unfair that he gets the last word on his own arguments but Pro doesn't get the last word on his own. Firstly, picking on the ectopic pregnancies was unnecessary and annoying. It's irrelevant. Secondly, Pro showed how the women still are aware of the risks simply because they know how babies are made, so the health stuff is irrelevant. Pro successfully debunked this point. Point to Pro.
Point 2: Con says that a lack of abortion forces unwilling women into slavery. Pro says that women can’t be chattel because they are real estate and therefore are excluded from the definition. Con says that they are not real estate and that they are forced to parent the children, making them slaves. Pro says that pregnancy is not slavery because the woman knew what she was getting into and therefore has a responsibility.
Con never addressed the "killing a stranger" part of this argument at all. Besides that, he literally says that the subjectivity of life is increasing, which was Pro's point all along. However, we must determine if that is because of abortion or not. Con basically admitted it, as Pro pointed out, when he said that some people will take a stranger for $12k and others won't, and Pro said that they will "kill" a stranger for $12k while others won't. Con never addressed the "kill" part of this. Point to Pro.
Point 4: Pro says that all people have a right to life, and therefore so do embryos if it is proven that they are living. Con points out that the 14th amendment says that states, or governments, can’t take life away. All that Pro then says is that life should win over someone’s right to privacy. Con reasserts what he already said.
Pro essentially drops his original argument, so I must give this to Con for a good examination of the Constitution.
(Con's arguments)
Point 2: Pro says that abortion is murder since he established that the embryo is living and killing it is therefore murder. Con says that Pro would be making abortion already illegal by that definition since murder is already illegal and that Pro was using a non-sequitur fallacy. Pro says that it was completely relevant and therefore not a non-sequitur. Con then says that Pro used the wrong definition of non-sequitur and that defining abortion as already illegal is different from the resolution of making abortion illegal. Pro shows how the definitions are essentially the same, and then how, since abortion isn't illegal, he can't be arguing for abortion already being illegal. Con says that Pro admits that abortion is not murder by saying that abortion is not illegal.
This was obviously a ridiculous semantics argument which I was annoyed by. It is pretty clear what Pro means by abortion being murder and the core of that argument is never addressed by Con, as he only says that that would make abortion "already" murder, even though he provides no real justification for that. This argument goes to Pro.
Point 3: Pro says that abortion causes life to become subjective. Con says it has always been subjective and shows how some women are okay with high birth costs and others are not. Pro points out that that means that some women are ok with killing a stranger for $12k and others aren't, proving his point on the subjectivity of life. Con again asserts that human life is subjective in this regard because some women can afford it and others can't. Pro then says that he found no study on such a matter, and that it would show a moral breakdown if he had indeed found such a study. He also mentions adoption as an alternative. Con says that adoption can hurt other kids waiting and that Pro gave no reason why someone shouldn't take $12k instead of a stranger.
I know this took a long time, but it's cool, also this debate was awesome
I'll start with Pro's case
Arguments (Pro)
Point 1: Pro says that unborn children are human. Con says that human cells have no significance. He says that a lack of regulation for school shootings proves we don't care about human lives, let alone just human cells. Pro then says that not only do we try to stop school shootings, but that doesn't fight the fact that human embryos are lives that deserve to live. Con comes back by showing how immigrants could be given homes at the expense of American citizens, but they're not which shows the subjectivity of human life, and he also shows how universal background checks could reduce homicides, but we still don't reduce them. Pro points out that just because we don't do stuff to help children and immigrants doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the unborn. Con says that he has shown that the unborn are non-intelligent and therefore have no value.
I see the validity in Con's argument that non-intelligent life seems to have no value, as that was the premise of his value. Pro gave no real defense to this and did not show why non-intelligent life should have value, so this goes to Con. Remember, Pro has the burden.
My opponent just admitted to saving everything for last, which is a violation of the rules of the debate because you can’t make new arguments in the last round
No, it doesn't. It never says "if you see a gay person, kill them." It doesn't tell HUMANS to do that. Furthermore, the Bible says that the wages of sin, ANY SIN, is death. So you're basically saying that the Bible is telling us to kill anyone who sins, which is LITERALLY EVERYONE. That's obviously not true.
I'll go ahead and challenge you to the abortion one, don't challenge me to the pets in heaven one because I'm not sure what my opinion is on it yet because I haven't studied anything on it
I am again ignoring Con’s last argument since it isn’t fair to Pro. I simply fail to see the real evidence on Con’s part that the woman is a slave, since Pro pointed out that they knew what they were getting into. Point to Pro because of a lack of evidence on Con’s part.
Pro: 4
Con: 2
Pro gets arguments.
Sources: I heard that you don’t have to vote a specific side in all categories if you don’t want to, and I’m SO SLEEPY right now, and it probably wouldn’t make a difference anyway, so tied.
Point 1: Con says that a woman can suffer from many things following pregnancy, and also that Pro ignores the possibility that a mother could die unless the baby is aborted before birth. Pro points out that the pregnant women are aware of the bad effects, and that he is ok with abortion for ectopic pregnancies. He also says that abortions carry health risks. Con says that many women can't be aware because most pregnancies are unplanned, and he also points out that abortion health problems are rare. He says that Pro never mentioned ectopic pregnancies at first in his exception list, as well as the fact that Pro must be supporting carrying stillbirths to full term. Pro says that they are aware because they know what happens when they sleep with someone. He points out that Con is just picking at a minor detail he forgot in the description for ectopic pregnancies, and that stillbirth abortions are not actually abortions since the fetus is dead.
I'm ignoring Con's response because it's completely unfair that he gets the last word on his own arguments but Pro doesn't get the last word on his own. Firstly, picking on the ectopic pregnancies was unnecessary and annoying. It's irrelevant. Secondly, Pro showed how the women still are aware of the risks simply because they know how babies are made, so the health stuff is irrelevant. Pro successfully debunked this point. Point to Pro.
Point 2: Con says that a lack of abortion forces unwilling women into slavery. Pro says that women can’t be chattel because they are real estate and therefore are excluded from the definition. Con says that they are not real estate and that they are forced to parent the children, making them slaves. Pro says that pregnancy is not slavery because the woman knew what she was getting into and therefore has a responsibility.
Con never addressed the "killing a stranger" part of this argument at all. Besides that, he literally says that the subjectivity of life is increasing, which was Pro's point all along. However, we must determine if that is because of abortion or not. Con basically admitted it, as Pro pointed out, when he said that some people will take a stranger for $12k and others won't, and Pro said that they will "kill" a stranger for $12k while others won't. Con never addressed the "kill" part of this. Point to Pro.
Point 4: Pro says that all people have a right to life, and therefore so do embryos if it is proven that they are living. Con points out that the 14th amendment says that states, or governments, can’t take life away. All that Pro then says is that life should win over someone’s right to privacy. Con reasserts what he already said.
Pro essentially drops his original argument, so I must give this to Con for a good examination of the Constitution.
(Con's arguments)
Point 2: Pro says that abortion is murder since he established that the embryo is living and killing it is therefore murder. Con says that Pro would be making abortion already illegal by that definition since murder is already illegal and that Pro was using a non-sequitur fallacy. Pro says that it was completely relevant and therefore not a non-sequitur. Con then says that Pro used the wrong definition of non-sequitur and that defining abortion as already illegal is different from the resolution of making abortion illegal. Pro shows how the definitions are essentially the same, and then how, since abortion isn't illegal, he can't be arguing for abortion already being illegal. Con says that Pro admits that abortion is not murder by saying that abortion is not illegal.
This was obviously a ridiculous semantics argument which I was annoyed by. It is pretty clear what Pro means by abortion being murder and the core of that argument is never addressed by Con, as he only says that that would make abortion "already" murder, even though he provides no real justification for that. This argument goes to Pro.
Point 3: Pro says that abortion causes life to become subjective. Con says it has always been subjective and shows how some women are okay with high birth costs and others are not. Pro points out that that means that some women are ok with killing a stranger for $12k and others aren't, proving his point on the subjectivity of life. Con again asserts that human life is subjective in this regard because some women can afford it and others can't. Pro then says that he found no study on such a matter, and that it would show a moral breakdown if he had indeed found such a study. He also mentions adoption as an alternative. Con says that adoption can hurt other kids waiting and that Pro gave no reason why someone shouldn't take $12k instead of a stranger.
I know this took a long time, but it's cool, also this debate was awesome
I'll start with Pro's case
Arguments (Pro)
Point 1: Pro says that unborn children are human. Con says that human cells have no significance. He says that a lack of regulation for school shootings proves we don't care about human lives, let alone just human cells. Pro then says that not only do we try to stop school shootings, but that doesn't fight the fact that human embryos are lives that deserve to live. Con comes back by showing how immigrants could be given homes at the expense of American citizens, but they're not which shows the subjectivity of human life, and he also shows how universal background checks could reduce homicides, but we still don't reduce them. Pro points out that just because we don't do stuff to help children and immigrants doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the unborn. Con says that he has shown that the unborn are non-intelligent and therefore have no value.
I see the validity in Con's argument that non-intelligent life seems to have no value, as that was the premise of his value. Pro gave no real defense to this and did not show why non-intelligent life should have value, so this goes to Con. Remember, Pro has the burden.
This was cool :D
Are we waiving the fifth round since I put 4 rounds in the description or do you want to keep going?
Lol yessssssssssssssssssss
I'm good
This is too long :/ I don't have the time
DUDE I SUBMITTED MY THING WHAT IS THIS
Same here!
If I get time, remind me on Saturday if you can
Ok, I gotchu when I get home
Lol thanks genie
Will you delete my vote please?
I like you WAY more than RM dude lol it’s not bias, it’s just a thing where we try to have people actually put effort into their votes
But how about this, I’ll delete it and counter vote with the arguments but with my opinion in the other categories
I gotchuuuu, no need to be snarky lol, plus this way I don’t have to vote
You’re not half bad, but you’re not gonna best me xD
Can we do this together?
Not mad mad lol, mad as in he's the best rapper I've seen since Ralph, which is saying something
I was super busy and his response made me mad now, get ready for some FIREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Thanks lol
Anytime, dude, lol
I gotchu
Alrighty, lol
I gotchu
I gotchu
I still got ittttt
Thanks, dude! I’ll probably post on Saturday
No, but feel free to challenge me
Lol I didn't even know it would tie, that's cool
How did you even see that comment? XD
Alrighty, cool, I just started a 8 hour a day/5 day a week summer internship, so I feel the busyness too
Also school is still in for you? Are you in graduate school or something?
You've got a daaaaaaaaaay
Thanks to the voting legeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend
You can't cheat me :)
I can't stand fake people
No, I'm pretty sure that he's an agnostic, he just did another debate about God existing
I gotchu
Lol yeah
LOL, your profile literally says it was made TODAY
He literally just lied, that’s an admission if I’ve ever seen one
I’m calling cheats...all three of those voters signed up today, and they all happen to vote only against me? And all within an hour of each other
TO ALL VOTERS
My opponent just admitted to saving everything for last, which is a violation of the rules of the debate because you can’t make new arguments in the last round
Dude, why did you save so many arguments for the last round? I couldn’t even respond to any of those >:(
No, it doesn't. It never says "if you see a gay person, kill them." It doesn't tell HUMANS to do that. Furthermore, the Bible says that the wages of sin, ANY SIN, is death. So you're basically saying that the Bible is telling us to kill anyone who sins, which is LITERALLY EVERYONE. That's obviously not true.
I gotchu
No rush!
Of course!
I'll go ahead and challenge you to the abortion one, don't challenge me to the pets in heaven one because I'm not sure what my opinion is on it yet because I haven't studied anything on it