Instigator / Pro
41
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1240

When should personhood be attributed?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
3
Better sources
12
6
Better legibility
6
5
Better conduct
5
1

After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

*Burden of proof*
-Shared
-PRO: Personhood *should* be attributed at conception
-CON: Personhood *should* be attributed at a time other than conception (e.g birth)

*Definitions*
Personhood - "Perceived by law to possess unalienable rights (specifically the right to life)"
Conception - "The exact moment of the union of the homo sapien spermatazoon and ova, such that a zygote is formed"

*Rules*
1. One must comment on this debate if they wish to accept to ensure that all definitions, BoP etc. are stipulated. Failure to adhere will result in immediate forfeiture.
2. Failure to adhere to the debate format is considered poor conduct.
3. Forfeiture of any round without notice is also considered poor conduct.
4. Don't be afraid to negotiate rules, definitions or formatting before accepting the debate (but do not accept until they are stipulated!)
5. No kritiks

*Format*
Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals/Defence
Round 4: Rebuttals/Defence with summary (no new arguments and or new defence)

(I am more than willing to negotiate the format, if one were to propose a format with only four rounds)

*To note*
-Con must affirm a specific stage of development warranting the attribution of personhood (be it 6 weeks, birth etc.)

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

SO MANY FFs, SO LITTLE TIME!!!

HEHEEHHEHEEHEHEHEHEHHEEHEHHE

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

Con forfeits, a violation of rule 3, this is poor conduct.

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

Contender, I am sorry to be so critical, but after agreeing to this debate I felt you did not give it a good effort and let me down. I waited in anticipation for two weeks at a time for your replies and was very disappointed. I thought this debate topic was not one that many people had tackled and I wanted to see two good presentations. I only got one.

Round 2 was the only round that Contender engaged in and I thought his sources, while accredited, had very little to do with the topic of personhood. They never established or gave good reason to believe personhood begins at birth, the topic of debate. Only source # 3 came anywhere close.

Contender failed to address Pros arguments on almost every issue including a) what was most reasonable to believe, b) the rule of law, c) equal application of the law, d) morality, e) moral value, f) absolute value, g) logic or h) the philosophical aspect. Con never established with certainty or good reason why personhood begins at birth or is attributed at birth by his sources, whereas I was expecting Con to provide arguments for just that - personhood begins at birth.

Thus, Con never addressed what Pro sought as Cons burden of proof:
"Here is where the debate begins – I, as Pro, must advocate why this proposition is most prudent. Con, on the other hand, must advocate that personhood is not only implied by biological humanity, but also by other predicates."

Nor did Contender refute Pros logic.

Here is an example that Con did not address:
"To reject the Pro position, that biological humanity is the sole implication of personhood, would be to state that either biological humanity does not implicate personhood at all, or biological humanity is not enough to implicate personhood."

Contender never justified why it was not enough, just asserted.

Cons Embryology 101 was a lesson on how the unborn develops but had very little in understanding how personhood begins at birth.

Cons syllogism failed on P1. I was given no sufficient reason, just assertion of P1. I failed to understand how lack of consciousness disqualified the unborn from being a personal being by its very nature. Pro mentioned how those in a coma (or for that matter, I would add sleeping) are disqualified from being people. Contender could have attacked that argument, but alas, he never did.

Because Contender missed two round of the debate and provided a bare minimum on the other round I believe he should be deducted conduct points since only one side put forth the effort. Also, Pro was very gracious in waiving the rounds and giving Contender a chance to catch up. Thus, I feel Pro deserves conduct points.

I felt that spelling and grammar were adequate for both opponents.

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

Forfeiture, and what looks like a concession (concessions get conduct from me, I like everyone's time being saved)...

To actually get this debate to happen, you two should probably do it on the forums or otherwise, and then copy/paste the finished product into a debate for voting.

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

Con forfeits not 1 but 2 rounds, which is bad conduct. Con's excuse for this is due to lack of "time" despite having an entire week to make arguments.

People should not accept debates to begin with if they know they aren't going to have time on their hands to actually debate.

In fact, Virtuoso has forfeited previous debates due to lack of "time" multiple times already in the past. His debating history and previous debates can be checked to confirm this, so it's not like this is his first time doing it. This is becoming a bad habit.

If he doesn't believe that he will have the time to make arguments, he should simply make it so that there is more time to post arguments, like maybe a month to post arguments instead of a week.

Either way, you can't bite off more than you can chew. In other words, you can't reasonably debate someone AND focus so much on your real life issues at the same time. Debates generally require time, energy, research, and effort. You can't put forth your best arguments when all 4 of those aforementioned things are being used up elsehwere.

Aside from that, both sides seemed to have decent sources as well as spelling an grammar, so I tied those.

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

C/FF.