Instigator / Pro
12
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#1125

Should Abortion Be Illegal

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Judges
David's avatar
David
91 debates / 171 votes
No vote
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
14 debates / 8 votes
No vote
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
27 debates / 191 votes
Voted
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0 debates / 2 votes
Voted
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
43 debates / 689 votes
Voted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
21
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

This challenge to debate abortion with you, Ragnar, is a result of the match between Caleb and you. Based on the three points Cabel cited in his first round, I did not find your arguments and rebuttal particularly convincing; in fact, I thought your logic flawed and in need of further exploration. Thus, I want to exploit your reasoning further by challenging you to a debate on the same three foundational points formulated by Caleb in his opening round (R1) plus your position on slavery and dispute any other areas that may arise from these four contentions.

These contentions are,
1. The unborn child is very much alive and very much human;
2. Abortion is murder ;
3. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective;
4. Your position on slavery

I want to change the point order slightly and add a few adjustments to the wording:

1. Concerning human beings, the unborn from conception is very much alive and very much a human being;

2. Abortion causes the value of human life to become subjective.

3. Abortion is murder (except when the woman's life is threatened such as by a tubal/ectopic pregnancy that will result in her death if not terminated) ;

4. Slavery association with pregnant women.

***

Four Rounds.
First Round is reserved for opening statements
No new arguments in the final round.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for voting!

-->
@FaustianJustice

Thanks for voting! And I'm sorry it wasn't an enjoyable read like last time.

For the record, I read the RFD offered after I suggested mine own, and WhiteFlame does a pretty good job on giving a word choice to my concerns.

-->
@Barney

No worries, I should be sitting down to review this tonight.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for voting, doubly so for such a long and detailed one with so much thought put into it. At 13,490 characters, it surpassed our 12K limit, and was in fact almost twice the length of my R3.

oooh I'm excited to see how this plays out

-->
@Barney

I've read through it, haven't had much time to sit down and write out an RFD just yet. Should be working on that this weekend.

-->
@Barney

I will be voting, in starting to ramp back up after a really busy few weeks; however weekdays are when I am most active voting :)

-->
@David
@bsh1
@whiteflame
@FaustianJustice
@Ramshutu

Given that it's the start of the weekend, I figure now would be an ideal time for a vote reminder. So please vote...

Of course if not voting, any debate feedback would still very much be appreciated.

I would've asked him to clarify what he means by "women" when states "Put simply, I don’t hate women. This causes me to be in favor of their continued rights."

All women or just certain women? "Woman" technically is an adult female. So is he implying there are some females he does hate, and thus would be in favor of eliminating their rights? This is a huge question with huge implications.

- if you love X (i.e. don't X), then it follows the very first thing would be to allow X to continue to exist (live). After all, how could you say you love "X" but want it to not live (continue existing).

It also follows that if you love (don't hate) X, you would want those things that develop into X to continue to do so.

A typo of note from me in R3 was: "Con has offered no value alternative" which should have read "Pro" instead of con (as I was con referred to pro). Anyway, I don't expect S&G to become an issue on this debate.

Ragnar could lose!

(I don't care who wins, but it looks even and this will be Ragnar's first loss EVER)

-->
@bsh1
@Barney
@whiteflame
@FaustianJustice
@Ramshutu

Clarification:

To make other materials fit I deleted a portion of my response in R3. This contained a citation [1]. Instead of reassigning all citations I started with [2]. There are only eleven citations instead of twelve (i.e., 2-12).

-->
@Mharman

That is a fascinating opinion, given that you haven't read the arguments.

Pro should win this.

-->
@David
@Barney
@whiteflame
@FaustianJustice
@Ramshutu

(and bsh1)
Correction: Round 2, under 'To the Readers and Judges' the sentence "...especially to those in power who make the rules of preference binding" should have read, "...especially by those in power who make the rules of preference binding."

This will be interesting.

I'm rooting for Pro.