Instigator / Con
26
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1030

Abortion Should Be Legal

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
2
2

After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
10
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

BoP is shared.
No deconstruction semantics.
No arguments regarding the philosophy of morality.
Pro has affirm the legality of abortion for at least some period of pregnancy.

Con has to defend bans on all abortion except in cases where abortion is required to save the mother's life and for cases of rape.

Debate format:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Case
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals with no new arguments

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Concession.

From the perspective of feedback, cons framing was excellent. For pro, only premise 1 and 2 are really the only ones that can attack the resolution: as the remainder (with the exception of maybe 3), are all items predicated on assuming that an unborn child shouldn’t be treated like a person. The main thrust of the arguments should likely have been relayed to these first two points, as cons framing of the unborn child deserving the rights of a person in its own right was very strong, and Trumps almost every practicality listed.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Concession R4 on Pro's part.

Pro, you would not necessarily have lost anyway, a lot of what determines that would be in the later-Round rebuttals and defence so it's very hard to say.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con provides a rebuttal for all of Pro's arguments, of which there are more than I'm willing to individually survey. For instance, the claim that fetuses are part of the mother was effectively refuted through his biological arguments. Furthermore, Pro forfeited/conceded half the rounds. Another argument is that legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions. Con's rebuttal shows an example of not legalizing murder despite murder already taking place.
Arguments to Con.
"a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds"
Conduct to Con.
Note to Pro: I think that if you had continued you still would have lost. And personally, I believe that anything with the potential to be a person deserves the same rights as one, because in the scope of time, they ARE a person at a future point in time. it is only our limited scope of time that prevents us from seeing that.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Concession, so I give automatic arguments against and conduct to the conceding side (it's the one case of someone earning conduct, rather than it being a penalty).

If not for the concession, I would not be voting on this (nor reading it this deeply) due to the strength of my personal bias.

Let's see... Massive credit to con for putting his case into logical form right at the start.
Pro gets a good amount of credit for similarly listing his case in short form at the start of his round 1 (comparatively less credit, as he did not put it into a logical argument, but left it as individual clauses to be assembled later).

By the time of pro's departure from the debate, con indeed had a solid lead. This was only increased by the debate setup placing a lower BoP on him (it was not his duty to prove it should be illegal, merely that pro had not proven it should be legal).

Sources were a funny thing on this, both sides started off weak (con's first was a religious source. pro's first was a debate website). But later in the debate con gained momentum on good sources, the Alzheimer’s one being of particular note, as it frames the argument in such a way to create an emotional connection to our respected elders who by some standards are gone but we have not given up on.