Vici

mall failed to address the arguments of con instead asking for him to "answer a question" as opposed to winning the debate

The con accepted that the human being ought to have right but argued that this right isn’t better then the right of the mother to her my body my choice. However, the Bones said quite correctly that the dope room experiment disprove this. Watching Con debate was seriously painful - bones gave the dopamine room in round 2, and con refuted it in round 2. But then when bone requoted the dopamine room so that they could address the rebuttals, con for some reason just requoted the dopamine room again. This meant that con essentially forfeited an entire round because instead of addreingt the further proof of an argument, they went back to square one and re-refuted the argument, ignoring the point they were already rebutted by the other team.

critical left the match

Full forfeit

Full forfiet

Pretty much, this debate comes down to a single question which Bones poses and reiterates throughout his rounds. The question is, is the unborn alive? If yes, then the damages of legalising and structualising abortion results in the deaths of the unborn which far outway the harms which whiteflames cite. If not, well, that would nullify Bones’ entire argument - however, Bones knows this, so he dedicated his entire 1st round to proving that the unborn ought to have rights. If whiteflames wanted to go down the route of asserting that the fetus doesn’t have rights, they would have to address the philosophy, which they pretty much didn’t. Whiteflames’ entire case was “making abortion illegal would result in bad things for the women such as XYZ” but as bones said, this is only the case if we assume that the unborn doesn’t have rights, which whiteflames essentially assumes (I will cover their rebuttal of bones’ case later, but they are evidently secondary in his argument and very short).

Bones also brings up the slavery example which is quite extrodinary - it is that EVEN IF we give whiteflames the benefit of the doubt and say that even if having no abortion causes structural violence to a greater extent than rights of the fetus, this STILL is not a reason to kill it the fetus because they have rights even if their utility is lower.

Whiteflame’s only attempt at disapproving the philosophical grounds of bones’ argument is his refutation of the inconsequential difference (he only refutes the others through showing that they do not have “solvency”, which, essentially, concedes the philosophical aspect and argues instead on the pragmatic front. However, as bones says, the pragmatic falues for whiteflames, because the killing of the fetus is worse than that of banning abortion)

Whiteflames’ attempt to use the argument onto the fertilisation stage is disingenuous. As bones said, IN THE FIRST ROUND (preemptively) “ To contend PRO's criteria of biological humanity entails that no human, born or unborn, have rights. Our society is one which grants moral rights to humans, so we can grant that it is axiomatically true that humans have rights, and thus my position too, axiomatically follows”. Whiteflames never engages with this and merely repeats themselves.

The only way he could have won was to say that the unborn ought not have rights, but as bones had already preemptively destroyed this position and exposed the inherent flaws (first argument from him), they probably knew to stray away from there. To end with some opposites, I'll cite some issues with bones and positives of whiteflames. The issue with bones is that 1. He speaks too complicatingly and 2. He dropped his dopamine experiment which is unstoppable. Also, he should have mentioned the words “structual violence” when refuting, and made explicit the fact that whiteflames is contributing to structural violence, something which bones should have clearly mentioned. The good thing with whiteflames is that his case appeals greatly to emotion - it is difficult not to think about the pains of the mothers who are denied abortions. However, bones does come back and make this philosophical and puts a rational objective lens, which is where he wins.

I’ll leave with this, which pretty much recaps the entire debate - Whiteflames entire case is the “structural violence” of banning abortion, however, as bones says, If the unborn are human beings, the effects of killing them is more immoral than the effects of banning abortion”, essentially underminding CON’s entire case.

Good jobs to both contestants!

PRO opens with a strong opening - that the fetus is a human life and that they shouldn't be killed.

CON responds by arguing that many things are considered "life". I don't buy this - it seems axiomatic that human life is worth something (thus we think we would rather kill a turtle than a child). CON also argues that 8 weeks is their cut off, because that is when they are most life a like, as opposed to a fish.

PRo responds to the first point by reiterating that abortion is scientifically murder. with some sources to corroborate. They also argue that, when women find out that they are pregnant, it is usually when the baby already has a heartbeat (thus satisfying CON's criteria for being like a human).

CON then argues that the question is nto whether the fetus is a life , but whether they ought to be considered with human rights. This seems ontologically unnecesary. Why create this new criteria? CON also argues that fishes have heartbeats, so that is not a good criteria.

PRO retorts by asserting quite rightly that it jus seems that the human has more value than a fly. I can accept this - it seems so obvious that it is axiomatic.

I think that PRO won this over all - they were able to show that scientifically abortion is murder. This is done through first establishing that killing a person is valuable, and thus by extention the fetus is too. Also CON forfeited half the contest, so conduct and convincing arguments go to PRO.

ehyeh is going to hell advocating sexual attraction as opposed to selebicy.