Total votes: 4
Pro Arguments: Womans Health, and Human Rights.
Con Arguments: Human Being, Personhood, Unjust Societies (Nazi), Dehumanizing Unborn,
Pro made a strong case about Womans health. Great details and stats. Showed harm if pregnancies are banned. I believed what was being said. Con focused a bunch on personhood, and Nazi's Implying that having legal abortions is like running an unjust society not better than the Nazis. Con also kept repeating that everyone is treated equal under the law.
Pro did a good job questioning the definition of personhood, giving some std and cancer examples.
The debate is about the law. Pro made better arguments about the impact of having legal abortion. Con did not paint a clear picture on if abortions are illegal.
Pro's arguments were clearer, and more plausible.
Both did great.
Well Pro made some good points about bad effects forcing blood donation and the health.
Pro made some points that Con did not see or deal with. Thats the issue here Pro made a bunch of points and Con did not even pretend to see them
I dont buy the cost saving aspect. A few of those comments I dont agree with. And Pro did not qualify them but the points are clear. With evidence.
The entire debate was Pro --- Here are reasons (like em or not) Con --- Nah let them give blood instead
Better sources by Pro
Spelling and stuff. Well con missed a bunch of spaces before brackets and that was very distracting. Made it hard for my simple brain to read.
Conduct. I dont think its dudes fault mamma kicked him off the komp. Cant fault him.
Well they gave up. Conceded.
My first vote is super easy.