Right on, man. I make this argument on this site all the time and people act like I'm crazy to say it. I strongly recommend you define your terms before the other guy defines them against you.
So by your definition of enemy or rival movement, the NAZIs were not an enemy or rival movement of the Jews since they only genocided them and did not in fact , "render the original/other movement severely juxtaposed, hypocritical and/or critically implausible to uphold what it's actively pushing for "
I assume it is not kritik to argue that global trans intolerance, fear, suicide, violence, incarceration, capitol punishment, prostitution, etc. are more fundamental "enemies" of trans folks then privileged Karens crying about pronouns.
It is increasingly hard to get VOTERS to vote on long boring debates. I am trying to do more rounds with shorter character limits to improve clash and interest.
I wouldn't characterize that as an argument so much as an attempt to illustrate the gap you failed to close between unjust killing and good public policy. If that wasn't clear I'll apologize for being way past bedtime when I wrote it. That gap and the way you spent one third of the debate countering that personhood straw man were the two big problems I had with your argument.
THBT: On balance, the US OUGHT to make ABORTION ILLEGAL
Overall, one gets the impression that PRO had a prepared argument for ABORTION is IMMORAL and decided to shoehorn that argument into a public policy debate. PRO never really talks about impacts, costs benefits, the rights of citizens and particularly the rights of women or even whether his plan for outlawing might be an efficient means of producing the desired result (i.e. fewer abortions).
PRO failed to define his terms and wastes 80% of his opening argument on irrelevant assumptions trying to box CON in.
PRO builds a an elaborate series of interdependent arguments depending on the presumption that CON must argue that personhood begins at birth. The entire thing is one gigantic straw man built expressly for PRO to knock down before CON even has his say.
CON must argue that personhood requires more than just humanity but also some other not yet defined but already necessarily inconsequential and inconsistent quality.
PRO argues CON has the higher burden of proof because CON will make a personhood case that relies on more than mere humanity.
CON wisely destroys PRO's whole house of cards by denying that the question of beginnings of personhood have any influence on his case. PRO will continue insist but he can't force CON to play PRO's game. The whole gambit corrupts PRO's argument because PRO seems to just presume that all he has to do is prove that a fetus has human rights and all US Public Policy will follow. But US Public Policy must prioritize the rights of US citizens before the human rights of others and the obligations of US citizens towards non-citizens is never established by PRO or even discussed.
PRO's long prefutation also makes a lot of strange declarations without a lot of evidence
" logical impossibility of proposing a sound criteria for instilling personhood between conception and birth"
what about brain activity? heartbeat? response to external stimuli? PRO says any criteria must be subject and ambiguous but heartbeats and kicks are pretty objective.
"I assert that these differences are insignificant in determining the moral agency of an individual. "
PRO is arguing human rights from conception but this argument only compares fetus to newborn, ignoring the first 10 weeks( and so, the majority of all abortions.) Even this argument is manifestly false but would anybody really say that the difference between a 4 celled zygote and a newbord baby? Also, MORAL AGENCY is an individual's capacity to know right from wrong. I'd agree that you can't tell any difference between the moral agency of a fetus and a newborn but I'd never use a baby's moral agency as a criteria for moral worth. I assume PRO is simply misspeaking here.
PRO's argument that the "moral worth" of any fetus is subjective relative to the mother is self-defeating: if the Mother is the best source for assessing moral worth, doesn't that argue that the USFG is better off staying out of the moral question and leaving that expert to weigh values vs harms?
PRO's argument for legal consistency will prove self-defeating in ROUND 2, when PRO tries to shift his framework to allow "reasonable exceptions."
PRO is still assuming that personhood is the whole of his argument when he argues that uncertainty of personhood demands that conception be the starting point of personhood to avoid any harm.
CON is correct when he argues 1) This is the only of PRO's arguments that connects his principles to his plan. 2) That PRO never considers the harms to the born, to society, to the rights of citizens, and most particularly the rights of women condemned to unwanted or unsupportable motherhoods. If all the harms of legalized abortion fall upon non-citizens (whether proved persons or not, whether imbued with human rights or not) and all the harms of criminalizing abortion fall on US citizens, isn't the US obligated to prioritize the citizen? 3) Certain harms must outweigh uncertain harms. Only CON is arguing against certain harms.
Furthermore, PRO tries to shift the greater burden of proof on CON because PRO prefutation is so undeniable. CON easily dodges PRO's elaborate, unsupportable construction and wisely reminds PRO that BoP was set before the debate. In fact, as the instigator PRO necessarily the higher BoP here to show how making abortion illegal will improve US but PRO demonstrates little interest in welfare of the state.
80% of PRO's R1 is wasted negating an argument CON never employs. PRO's only real affirmative comes in a convoluted, circular syllogism.
P1. If abortion is killing and the reason for aborting is unjustified, abortion is unjustified killing.
P2. Abortion involves killing.
P3. The reasons for aborting are unjustified.
C1. Abortion is unjustified killing.
P4. Unjustified killing ought to be illegal.
C2. Abortion ought to be illegal.
That is:
P1. If A is B and if A is C then A is B+C
P2. A is B
P3. A is C
C1. A is B+C
P4. C should be D
C2. Therefore A should be D
D ( illegal) is not properly distributed- PRO's only affirmative argument fails formally.
P1 depends on PRO proving P3
P4 depends on PRO proving P3
C1 and C2 depend on PRO proving P3
The WHOLE of PRO's argument rests on this single evidence:
"According to the Guttmacher institute the two most common reasons for having abortions were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively). Obviously, these reasons do not justify the killing of a born human lives, and thus should not be justifications for killing unborn human lives. "
PRO's whole argument sits on circular PROOF by ASSERTION: abortion is unjustified because the two most common justifications are obviously insufficient, no evidence required.
PRO should have scrapped his whole argument before this and start by explaining why the USFG must not respect the disruption and financial hardship of US citizens as sufficient harms to outweigh the right to life of non-citizens. Instead, PRO just rests his case as "it's obvious" and "CON can't possibly argue anything worthy of consideration."
By contrast, CON's affirmative is straightforward:
P1: Policies that inflict structural violence ought not be implemented
P2: Making abortion illegal would inflict structural violence
C1: Abortion ought not be made illegal
tight. The USFG must never make policy that creates inequality. As a US citizen who has read the Declaration of Independence, I accept this as axiomatic.
CON supports hist middle term "structural violence" with 6 compelling and well-documented harms.
CON tears down PRO's case effectively
"His P4 and C2 are used to convert from a purely moral issue (abortion is unjustified killing) to a policy stance (abortion ought to be illegal), yet that conversion is only meaningful if said policy is effective."
"The beginnings of personhood do not influence my case."
"Pro bites his own critiques about arbitrary selection and using subjective criteria for personhood."
"Pro claims that the most common reasons for obtaining an abortion are unjustified (his P3). Pro doesn’t explain why either of these reasons are unjustified and provides virtually no distinction between justified and unjustified reasons. "
In R2, PRO argues that CON's case is overnarrow because the application of the law is sufficiently flexible to provide exceptions for all of CON's harms. This directly contradicts PRO's assertion that Inconsistent application of the law is "one of the most frequent manifestations of unfairness" PRO does not bother to explain how such exceptions are suddenly no longer unjustified killing because once he admits that there are some considerations that outweigh the harm of unjustified killing, his "these reasons are obviously unjust" P3 from R1 must be revisited with consideration of relative values.
PRO tries to shift the BoP as second time by repeating his R1 argument
PRO falsely attributes the uncertainty principle argument as one of CON's arguments but correctly faults his own argument as an appeal to incredulity.
PRO ignores the fact that CON's case does not depend on "the beginnings of personhood" and continues his R1 argument that CON's position on the beginnings of personhood is untenable.
PRO argues:
" We live in a society in which human beings (at least grown) have rights and liberties which are upheld by the law. We can thus grant that human beings have rights. As a human beings come into existence at the moment of conception, it is axiomatically the case that it is significant - for they have become what is apodictically granted as worthy of human rights"
That is, even though PRO argued in P1 that the beginnings humanity are uncertain and unknowable, now he states as axiomatic that conception is the starting of personhood and therefore fully vested with human rights (PRO still doesn't bother to explain how US law applies to non-citizens). A is always B therefore A is always B.
At several points PRO seems to be directly attributing his R1 straw man arguments to CON that PRO actually wrote.
For example: "This is false - the uncertainty only arises when we adopt CON's subjective benchmark for prescribing personhood - it is an issue only for those (CON) who wish to deny biological humanity as solely sufficient in converting personhood. "
CON never offered any benchmark, PRO wrote one for him. CON never denies that biological humanity is solely sufficient in converting personhood, that was an argument PRO wrote in R1 that CON correctly sidestepped as irrelevant to public policy.
If this VOTER had an option to deduct points for conduct, that deduction would have been clicked at this point.
PRO denies that there is any great leap between what's morally unjustified and the law but this is manifestly false. Nuclear weapons, for example, are morally unjustified but well-justified if not essential public policy. Police shooting an unarmed civilian is never morally justified but a natural and tolerated side effect of the 2nd Amendment as Constitutional public policy. Not every public policy that kills unjustly must be or should be banned. There is a great leap that PRO is blind to and this blindness is what makes his argument fail.
PRO improves his P3 in R1 with adoption but makes no argument that a pregnancy with adoption wouldn't still be life-changing or financially devastating.
PRO really doesn't address the integrity of any of CON's claims. He merely extends his strawman.
"CON has not proposed a sound predicate for instilling personhood thus currently, in their analysis, no persons have rights."
Neither CON's argument nor any USFG have been shown to necessitate any predicate for instilling personhood.
PRO's specific refutations are far too slight considering that CON's harms are the most substantial part of this debate. PRO offers little evidence and zero sources to support these essential claims.
Criminalizing abortion won't reduce family clinics.
Criminalizing abortion won't increase less safe illegal abortions.
Criminalizing abortion won't increase burden on hospitals
Criminalizing abortion won't increase unfair prosecutions of miscarriage.
CON gave us a lot of sourcing to justify his harms and PRO gives none. PRO blows off most of CON's affirmative with some very slight, less than compelling dismissals.
In R2, CON points out the shifts in PRO's argument and repeats that his argument is not dependent on any determinations of when personhood starts.
CON effectively rejects PRO's argument that US abortions will increase based on the fact that UK increased abortions when paid for by govt and Ireland increased abortions when legalized. PRO gave us much more international and focused study including the Guttmacher Institute PRO relied on.
CON effectively challenges all of PRO analogies and mostly just extends his R1s to refute PRO insubstantial counters.
In R3, PRO's intro and conclusion summarize the problem of his argument pretty well. In spite of being the instigator of the debate he focuses entirely on CON's argument, even his opening argument just mostly tried to presage CON's.
"CON's weighing off the harms of abortion on women can be considered strong only in our society - one in which the unborn are presupposed as being subhuman and whom's killing thus elicit a lesser outrage than the "pointless suffering" of "pregnant women".
An amazing statement considering that 1) PRO was only supposed to be considering policy for the society he condemns, and 2) if there some country that bans abortion but enjoys better childcare outcomes than the US, I don't know it. PRO invokes pure logic but PRO's logic has been far inferior to CON's. Take the dueling syllogisms for example.
PRO brings some much stronger counterarguments to bear on CON's harms but I think I have to agree with CON's objection to these as a violation of PRO's rule against new arguments and set these aside from consideration (I don't think they saved PRO at any rate).
PRO re-summarize his R1 straw man personhood argument which is still castrated by CON's lack of dependency on personhood.
"the literal concession that CON's proposition does not allow for the determining of who ought and oughtn't have have human rights entails that there exists no criteria for personhood thus no persons have rights" But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here.
I'll say again that this felt like PRO started with a pre-fab elegantly written moral case against abortion which he rewrote as a preconception of CON. CON wisely deflated the structure of PRO's straw man leaving one weakly supported "it's obvious" argument standing against 6 real and well-evidenced harms. All of which sits on a solid principle: The USFG must never make law that creates new inequalities- an argument PRO never addressed.
Having accused PRO of new argument, CON is careful to merely flesh out the impacts of structural violence and expose PRO's hypotheticals as insufficient by that standard and then restate the case.
I think CON summarizes PRO's R1 well " Pro’s position on the beginning of personhood is subjective, making his position subject to his principle of uncertainty argument. This means that every single one of Pro’s impacts on the lives of the unborn are relegated to uncertainty, as the degree of harm caused by their loss is entirely unclear."
CON correctly call PRO on merely assuming the impacts rather than relying on hard data. PRO calls abortion genocide at one point and assert 70 billion dead another but never get into the actual numbers of abortions, and especially whether those abortions were a net economic, social, legal benefit for US or a net harm.
PRO brings a moral argument to a policy debate. He illogically prioritized uncertain degrees of harm to one group of non-citizens over certain and specific harms to US citizens. The structure of PRO's argument unwisely depended on CON's participation and CON's smart deferral rendered much of PRO's argument unconvincing. CON parried with a simple, direct. logical, policy-based argument that PRO was unready and slow to refute.
101:
Lara wants to know if the type of music a child listens to affects his behavior. She wants to make an experiment about this. After stating her question, she makes a background research about the topic. What should she do next?
Bruh, give me a random final exam from a psychology class in the final year. Let's see if I pass it
You don't even know that most Psychology degree don't really have a final exam. You have to know neuroscience. You have to know bio-chemistry. Then its all about going into research and writing a massive thesis, then clinical work and internships, then residency. Like a MD, you can't just take a test and start cutting on people.
*I literally Google shit about psychology all the time and back when
*I was a big occultist I read all of Jung' s work.
*I think I could pass the final exam in a psychology class to earn a degree.
*I had a friend who is currently in the FBI, have me take his final criminal justice test. I scored 90%.
* I am literally more qualified to be in the FBI than actual FBI agents.
Thank you. That response perfectly illustrates your lack of qualification/education in human psychology.
"These assumptions seem permissible"
nothing outside of the text of the debate is permissibly relevant to judgement, for the same reason it would be wrong to judge an ice skating performance by race or psychological analysis or a cooking competition by race or psychological analysis. Of course, nobody believes that you did not already know the inappropriateness of your act. You do not act except to pervert the norm.
"It is typically worse for a patient to be late than a doctor, because the doctor's time is more precious and valuable."
False. Drs. set the time and place of appointment and so bear the greater burden. A surgeon who is 20 minutes could kill a patient. A patient who is 20 mins can only inconvenience a doctor.
"We make these assumptions all the time, "
false
"I see no reason not to conclude based on what 90% of debaters do"
false
So you based your vote on the stories you tell yourself about participants in your head? The story in my head about your vote is that it had more to do with the subject being a black woman and your determination to undermine such people whenever you think you can get away with it.
I might take this one if you can resolve the double negative. How about you positively assert that homosexuality is not a natural form of birth control? It seems to me that gay sex prevents pregnancies without any artificial intervention.
"there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so"
You are a sucker to think so. Donald Trump inherited one/tenth of all rental properties in New York City and lost it all in twenty years. If he had done absolutely nothing but held on to what he inherited he'd be worth $200 billion today and easily the richest man on Earth. But still, after losing it all, the media let him publish books about his financial genius and then the media actually paid him to play a guy on TV who knows about money, the media knew he was pocketing all that money he claimed to give to charity on his tv show and they let him get away with it, the media knew all those people calling into radio shows to talk about how much they loved Donald Trump was actually just Donald Trump and they let him get away with it, the media knew he'd ripped off nearly every bank and lawyer he'd ever done business with but they let him get away with it, the media knew Jeff Epstein threw parties for Trump where it was just the two of them alone with 30 girls and they let him get away with it. Nobody in the history of mankind has gotten a better break from the media than Donald Trump.
"You basically only argue truisms."
Since you disagree with everything I say isn't that your admission that not only are you wrong about everything but you know that you are wrong about everything?
Right on, man. I make this argument on this site all the time and people act like I'm crazy to say it. I strongly recommend you define your terms before the other guy defines them against you.
PRO's ROUND3 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5924785/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
CON's ROUND 3 SOURCES:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/09/california-admits-dmv-error-added-noncitizens-to-voter-rolls/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/09/california-admits-dmv-error-added-noncitizens-to-voter-rolls/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2020
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/?s=decertification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3677-the-usfg-should-decertify-the-2020-election?argument_number=2
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/5/i/01
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/republicans/election-bills
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
So by your definition of enemy or rival movement, the NAZIs were not an enemy or rival movement of the Jews since they only genocided them and did not in fact , "render the original/other movement severely juxtaposed, hypocritical and/or critically implausible to uphold what it's actively pushing for "
I am not able to accept this debate.
I assume it is not kritik to argue that global trans intolerance, fear, suicide, violence, incarceration, capitol punishment, prostitution, etc. are more fundamental "enemies" of trans folks then privileged Karens crying about pronouns.
thank you, Just! and welcome to the site!
PRO's R2 SOURCES:
https://egyptianstreets.com/2021/09/13/from-london-to-ancient-egypt-the-reincarnation-of-dorothy-eady/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Age_and_expansion_of_the_universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/#H4
CON's R2 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_synapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_synapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpotTheImposter
https://youtu.be/oMT1gVm3zmE
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797677/
https://www.celebretainment.com/arts_and_entertainment/she-is-a-reincarnated-egyptian-pharaoh-these-celebrities-believe-in-past-lives/collection_764340a6-9e4f-57de-b014-2f6c2c1ad1f0.html#1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship#Scientific_skepticism
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/many-peoples-earliest-memories-may-be-fictional.html
"I love how this debate started with proving reincarnation is a verifiable fact and ended with the current title."
Meaning you think there is some semantic gap between
reincarnation is a verifiable fact
and
reincarnation is detectable
Therefore, you think it is possible to verify physical phenomena without measurement, perception?
It is increasingly hard to get VOTERS to vote on long boring debates. I am trying to do more rounds with shorter character limits to improve clash and interest.
ROUND2 SOURCES:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_gaining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/wisconsin-results
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ipse_dixit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/how-do-i-get-a-real-id/real-id-checklist/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
https://ballotpedia.org/Debate_over_the_prevalence_of_noncitizens_voting
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=CA&combine=&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=All&page=1
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
Why deny when you could just count? 5th out of 10 votes puts me in the front half of voting.
Bones complained about the last minute nature of my vote but it turns out I was in the earlier half of all voters.
I see one double forfeit and one VOTING in PROGRESS. Rules are 2 finished rated debates with no more than one forfeiture. What's the bug?
Ossa does not meet the minimum qualifications for voting.
Dude has a huge dick and likes cocaine and whores. He seems cool
also, this was the 40,000th comment in debates
"Dude has a huge dick!"
Wylted's prime observation but elsewhere he has the nerve to argue that gay is curable.
The first 1v2 in Dart history.
I wouldn't characterize that as an argument so much as an attempt to illustrate the gap you failed to close between unjust killing and good public policy. If that wasn't clear I'll apologize for being way past bedtime when I wrote it. That gap and the way you spent one third of the debate countering that personhood straw man were the two big problems I had with your argument.
When are we going to do Hunter Biden's laptop?
THBT: On balance, the US OUGHT to make ABORTION ILLEGAL
Overall, one gets the impression that PRO had a prepared argument for ABORTION is IMMORAL and decided to shoehorn that argument into a public policy debate. PRO never really talks about impacts, costs benefits, the rights of citizens and particularly the rights of women or even whether his plan for outlawing might be an efficient means of producing the desired result (i.e. fewer abortions).
PRO failed to define his terms and wastes 80% of his opening argument on irrelevant assumptions trying to box CON in.
PRO builds a an elaborate series of interdependent arguments depending on the presumption that CON must argue that personhood begins at birth. The entire thing is one gigantic straw man built expressly for PRO to knock down before CON even has his say.
CON must argue that personhood requires more than just humanity but also some other not yet defined but already necessarily inconsequential and inconsistent quality.
PRO argues CON has the higher burden of proof because CON will make a personhood case that relies on more than mere humanity.
CON wisely destroys PRO's whole house of cards by denying that the question of beginnings of personhood have any influence on his case. PRO will continue insist but he can't force CON to play PRO's game. The whole gambit corrupts PRO's argument because PRO seems to just presume that all he has to do is prove that a fetus has human rights and all US Public Policy will follow. But US Public Policy must prioritize the rights of US citizens before the human rights of others and the obligations of US citizens towards non-citizens is never established by PRO or even discussed.
PRO's long prefutation also makes a lot of strange declarations without a lot of evidence
" logical impossibility of proposing a sound criteria for instilling personhood between conception and birth"
what about brain activity? heartbeat? response to external stimuli? PRO says any criteria must be subject and ambiguous but heartbeats and kicks are pretty objective.
"I assert that these differences are insignificant in determining the moral agency of an individual. "
PRO is arguing human rights from conception but this argument only compares fetus to newborn, ignoring the first 10 weeks( and so, the majority of all abortions.) Even this argument is manifestly false but would anybody really say that the difference between a 4 celled zygote and a newbord baby? Also, MORAL AGENCY is an individual's capacity to know right from wrong. I'd agree that you can't tell any difference between the moral agency of a fetus and a newborn but I'd never use a baby's moral agency as a criteria for moral worth. I assume PRO is simply misspeaking here.
PRO's argument that the "moral worth" of any fetus is subjective relative to the mother is self-defeating: if the Mother is the best source for assessing moral worth, doesn't that argue that the USFG is better off staying out of the moral question and leaving that expert to weigh values vs harms?
PRO's argument for legal consistency will prove self-defeating in ROUND 2, when PRO tries to shift his framework to allow "reasonable exceptions."
PRO is still assuming that personhood is the whole of his argument when he argues that uncertainty of personhood demands that conception be the starting point of personhood to avoid any harm.
CON is correct when he argues 1) This is the only of PRO's arguments that connects his principles to his plan. 2) That PRO never considers the harms to the born, to society, to the rights of citizens, and most particularly the rights of women condemned to unwanted or unsupportable motherhoods. If all the harms of legalized abortion fall upon non-citizens (whether proved persons or not, whether imbued with human rights or not) and all the harms of criminalizing abortion fall on US citizens, isn't the US obligated to prioritize the citizen? 3) Certain harms must outweigh uncertain harms. Only CON is arguing against certain harms.
Furthermore, PRO tries to shift the greater burden of proof on CON because PRO prefutation is so undeniable. CON easily dodges PRO's elaborate, unsupportable construction and wisely reminds PRO that BoP was set before the debate. In fact, as the instigator PRO necessarily the higher BoP here to show how making abortion illegal will improve US but PRO demonstrates little interest in welfare of the state.
80% of PRO's R1 is wasted negating an argument CON never employs. PRO's only real affirmative comes in a convoluted, circular syllogism.
P1. If abortion is killing and the reason for aborting is unjustified, abortion is unjustified killing.
P2. Abortion involves killing.
P3. The reasons for aborting are unjustified.
C1. Abortion is unjustified killing.
P4. Unjustified killing ought to be illegal.
C2. Abortion ought to be illegal.
That is:
P1. If A is B and if A is C then A is B+C
P2. A is B
P3. A is C
C1. A is B+C
P4. C should be D
C2. Therefore A should be D
D ( illegal) is not properly distributed- PRO's only affirmative argument fails formally.
P1 depends on PRO proving P3
P4 depends on PRO proving P3
C1 and C2 depend on PRO proving P3
The WHOLE of PRO's argument rests on this single evidence:
"According to the Guttmacher institute the two most common reasons for having abortions were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively). Obviously, these reasons do not justify the killing of a born human lives, and thus should not be justifications for killing unborn human lives. "
PRO's whole argument sits on circular PROOF by ASSERTION: abortion is unjustified because the two most common justifications are obviously insufficient, no evidence required.
PRO should have scrapped his whole argument before this and start by explaining why the USFG must not respect the disruption and financial hardship of US citizens as sufficient harms to outweigh the right to life of non-citizens. Instead, PRO just rests his case as "it's obvious" and "CON can't possibly argue anything worthy of consideration."
By contrast, CON's affirmative is straightforward:
P1: Policies that inflict structural violence ought not be implemented
P2: Making abortion illegal would inflict structural violence
C1: Abortion ought not be made illegal
tight. The USFG must never make policy that creates inequality. As a US citizen who has read the Declaration of Independence, I accept this as axiomatic.
CON supports hist middle term "structural violence" with 6 compelling and well-documented harms.
CON tears down PRO's case effectively
"His P4 and C2 are used to convert from a purely moral issue (abortion is unjustified killing) to a policy stance (abortion ought to be illegal), yet that conversion is only meaningful if said policy is effective."
"The beginnings of personhood do not influence my case."
"Pro bites his own critiques about arbitrary selection and using subjective criteria for personhood."
"Pro claims that the most common reasons for obtaining an abortion are unjustified (his P3). Pro doesn’t explain why either of these reasons are unjustified and provides virtually no distinction between justified and unjustified reasons. "
In R2, PRO argues that CON's case is overnarrow because the application of the law is sufficiently flexible to provide exceptions for all of CON's harms. This directly contradicts PRO's assertion that Inconsistent application of the law is "one of the most frequent manifestations of unfairness" PRO does not bother to explain how such exceptions are suddenly no longer unjustified killing because once he admits that there are some considerations that outweigh the harm of unjustified killing, his "these reasons are obviously unjust" P3 from R1 must be revisited with consideration of relative values.
PRO tries to shift the BoP as second time by repeating his R1 argument
PRO falsely attributes the uncertainty principle argument as one of CON's arguments but correctly faults his own argument as an appeal to incredulity.
PRO ignores the fact that CON's case does not depend on "the beginnings of personhood" and continues his R1 argument that CON's position on the beginnings of personhood is untenable.
PRO argues:
" We live in a society in which human beings (at least grown) have rights and liberties which are upheld by the law. We can thus grant that human beings have rights. As a human beings come into existence at the moment of conception, it is axiomatically the case that it is significant - for they have become what is apodictically granted as worthy of human rights"
That is, even though PRO argued in P1 that the beginnings humanity are uncertain and unknowable, now he states as axiomatic that conception is the starting of personhood and therefore fully vested with human rights (PRO still doesn't bother to explain how US law applies to non-citizens). A is always B therefore A is always B.
At several points PRO seems to be directly attributing his R1 straw man arguments to CON that PRO actually wrote.
For example: "This is false - the uncertainty only arises when we adopt CON's subjective benchmark for prescribing personhood - it is an issue only for those (CON) who wish to deny biological humanity as solely sufficient in converting personhood. "
CON never offered any benchmark, PRO wrote one for him. CON never denies that biological humanity is solely sufficient in converting personhood, that was an argument PRO wrote in R1 that CON correctly sidestepped as irrelevant to public policy.
If this VOTER had an option to deduct points for conduct, that deduction would have been clicked at this point.
PRO denies that there is any great leap between what's morally unjustified and the law but this is manifestly false. Nuclear weapons, for example, are morally unjustified but well-justified if not essential public policy. Police shooting an unarmed civilian is never morally justified but a natural and tolerated side effect of the 2nd Amendment as Constitutional public policy. Not every public policy that kills unjustly must be or should be banned. There is a great leap that PRO is blind to and this blindness is what makes his argument fail.
PRO improves his P3 in R1 with adoption but makes no argument that a pregnancy with adoption wouldn't still be life-changing or financially devastating.
PRO really doesn't address the integrity of any of CON's claims. He merely extends his strawman.
"CON has not proposed a sound predicate for instilling personhood thus currently, in their analysis, no persons have rights."
Neither CON's argument nor any USFG have been shown to necessitate any predicate for instilling personhood.
PRO's specific refutations are far too slight considering that CON's harms are the most substantial part of this debate. PRO offers little evidence and zero sources to support these essential claims.
Criminalizing abortion won't reduce family clinics.
Criminalizing abortion won't increase less safe illegal abortions.
Criminalizing abortion won't increase burden on hospitals
Criminalizing abortion won't increase unfair prosecutions of miscarriage.
CON gave us a lot of sourcing to justify his harms and PRO gives none. PRO blows off most of CON's affirmative with some very slight, less than compelling dismissals.
In R2, CON points out the shifts in PRO's argument and repeats that his argument is not dependent on any determinations of when personhood starts.
CON effectively rejects PRO's argument that US abortions will increase based on the fact that UK increased abortions when paid for by govt and Ireland increased abortions when legalized. PRO gave us much more international and focused study including the Guttmacher Institute PRO relied on.
CON effectively challenges all of PRO analogies and mostly just extends his R1s to refute PRO insubstantial counters.
In R3, PRO's intro and conclusion summarize the problem of his argument pretty well. In spite of being the instigator of the debate he focuses entirely on CON's argument, even his opening argument just mostly tried to presage CON's.
"CON's weighing off the harms of abortion on women can be considered strong only in our society - one in which the unborn are presupposed as being subhuman and whom's killing thus elicit a lesser outrage than the "pointless suffering" of "pregnant women".
An amazing statement considering that 1) PRO was only supposed to be considering policy for the society he condemns, and 2) if there some country that bans abortion but enjoys better childcare outcomes than the US, I don't know it. PRO invokes pure logic but PRO's logic has been far inferior to CON's. Take the dueling syllogisms for example.
PRO brings some much stronger counterarguments to bear on CON's harms but I think I have to agree with CON's objection to these as a violation of PRO's rule against new arguments and set these aside from consideration (I don't think they saved PRO at any rate).
PRO re-summarize his R1 straw man personhood argument which is still castrated by CON's lack of dependency on personhood.
"the literal concession that CON's proposition does not allow for the determining of who ought and oughtn't have have human rights entails that there exists no criteria for personhood thus no persons have rights" But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here.
I'll say again that this felt like PRO started with a pre-fab elegantly written moral case against abortion which he rewrote as a preconception of CON. CON wisely deflated the structure of PRO's straw man leaving one weakly supported "it's obvious" argument standing against 6 real and well-evidenced harms. All of which sits on a solid principle: The USFG must never make law that creates new inequalities- an argument PRO never addressed.
Having accused PRO of new argument, CON is careful to merely flesh out the impacts of structural violence and expose PRO's hypotheticals as insufficient by that standard and then restate the case.
I think CON summarizes PRO's R1 well " Pro’s position on the beginning of personhood is subjective, making his position subject to his principle of uncertainty argument. This means that every single one of Pro’s impacts on the lives of the unborn are relegated to uncertainty, as the degree of harm caused by their loss is entirely unclear."
CON correctly call PRO on merely assuming the impacts rather than relying on hard data. PRO calls abortion genocide at one point and assert 70 billion dead another but never get into the actual numbers of abortions, and especially whether those abortions were a net economic, social, legal benefit for US or a net harm.
PRO brings a moral argument to a policy debate. He illogically prioritized uncertain degrees of harm to one group of non-citizens over certain and specific harms to US citizens. The structure of PRO's argument unwisely depended on CON's participation and CON's smart deferral rendered much of PRO's argument unconvincing. CON parried with a simple, direct. logical, policy-based argument that PRO was unready and slow to refute.
Arguments to CON.
thanks for voting!
yep
Wow, so the potential benefits of breathing oxygen could never outweigh the potential harms? I did not know that. You're so intelligent and insightful
Thanks for voting!
3 days left
Since it had no forfeits.
101:
Lara wants to know if the type of music a child listens to affects his behavior. She wants to make an experiment about this. After stating her question, she makes a background research about the topic. What should she do next?
Bruh, give me a random final exam from a psychology class in the final year. Let's see if I pass it
You don't even know that most Psychology degree don't really have a final exam. You have to know neuroscience. You have to know bio-chemistry. Then its all about going into research and writing a massive thesis, then clinical work and internships, then residency. Like a MD, you can't just take a test and start cutting on people.
*I literally Google shit about psychology all the time and back when
*I was a big occultist I read all of Jung' s work.
*I think I could pass the final exam in a psychology class to earn a degree.
*I had a friend who is currently in the FBI, have me take his final criminal justice test. I scored 90%.
* I am literally more qualified to be in the FBI than actual FBI agents.
Thank you. That response perfectly illustrates your lack of qualification/education in human psychology.
"I am pretty good with human psychology."
false
" I think I got this one right."
false
"These assumptions seem permissible"
nothing outside of the text of the debate is permissibly relevant to judgement, for the same reason it would be wrong to judge an ice skating performance by race or psychological analysis or a cooking competition by race or psychological analysis. Of course, nobody believes that you did not already know the inappropriateness of your act. You do not act except to pervert the norm.
"It is typically worse for a patient to be late than a doctor, because the doctor's time is more precious and valuable."
False. Drs. set the time and place of appointment and so bear the greater burden. A surgeon who is 20 minutes could kill a patient. A patient who is 20 mins can only inconvenience a doctor.
"We make these assumptions all the time, "
false
"I see no reason not to conclude based on what 90% of debaters do"
false
So you based your vote on the stories you tell yourself about participants in your head? The story in my head about your vote is that it had more to do with the subject being a black woman and your determination to undermine such people whenever you think you can get away with it.
1 day left for easy FF's
Thanks for voting!
5 days left
CON's ROUND 1 SOURCES:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://img.apmcdn.org/8e01e18aa0a2530e539dc95d0b93a31ca8766b01/uncropped/980181-20200722-bob-capen-s-ballot.jpg
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/5/i/01
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/wisconsin-results
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS§ionNum=SEC.%202.&article=II
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/how-do-i-get-a-real-id/real-id-checklist/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
https://ballotpedia.org/Debate_over_the_prevalence_of_noncitizens_voting
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=CA&combine=&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=All&page=1
for the record, I did report Wylted's bad vote a few hours before voting closed.
1 week left to vote!
Thanks for voting!
I might take this one if you can resolve the double negative. How about you positively assert that homosexuality is not a natural form of birth control? It seems to me that gay sex prevents pregnancies without any artificial intervention.
zero votes so far
less than a week for voting
Thanks for voting!
yup
"there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so"
You are a sucker to think so. Donald Trump inherited one/tenth of all rental properties in New York City and lost it all in twenty years. If he had done absolutely nothing but held on to what he inherited he'd be worth $200 billion today and easily the richest man on Earth. But still, after losing it all, the media let him publish books about his financial genius and then the media actually paid him to play a guy on TV who knows about money, the media knew he was pocketing all that money he claimed to give to charity on his tv show and they let him get away with it, the media knew all those people calling into radio shows to talk about how much they loved Donald Trump was actually just Donald Trump and they let him get away with it, the media knew he'd ripped off nearly every bank and lawyer he'd ever done business with but they let him get away with it, the media knew Jeff Epstein threw parties for Trump where it was just the two of them alone with 30 girls and they let him get away with it. Nobody in the history of mankind has gotten a better break from the media than Donald Trump.
"You basically only argue truisms."
Since you disagree with everything I say isn't that your admission that not only are you wrong about everything but you know that you are wrong about everything?
seems like a delaying tactic but fine,
"I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden.
Good, that should be your claim.
"I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate."
That would be insane.
"I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden.
Good, that should be your claim.
"I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate."
That would be insane.