Que le gouvernement interdise l'avortement
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Ceci est un débat expérimental non-anglais. Ce débat se déroulera en français. La traduction Google est permise, mais essayez d'éviter d'utiliser la traduction automatique pour traduire des textes de haut longueur, car cela pourrait mener à de l'incohérence ou à des erreurs grammaticales gênantes. Je vous souhaite un bon débat.
I'll write my RFD here in English first and translate it to French for the vote. It will take me some time to translate it because Google Translate is not always accurate so I have to fiddle with my wording to get it to say what I want it to.
Pro begins the debate with a simple syllogism: an unborn child is a human life, therefore it is murder to kill it. He supports this with the example of third-trimester fetuses, which are, according to Pro, babies. He argues that, if they are human lives, it would be a slippery slope to contend that fetuses in earlier stages of development are not alive. Con attacks this with statistics showing the low viability rate of first-trimester infants. Pro counters that viability is an argument based on technology. In the future, technology could be developed that could make first-trimester fetuses viable, thus ruining the argument that life is determined by viability. This is also his refutation to the objection that fetuses are not lives because they are dependent on the mother. Pro also preemptively attacks the objection that the mother did not consent to the conception of the fetus, so she has no responsibility to keep it alive. He argues that consent is irrelevant because the responsibility is intrinsic to motherhood. Con counters that abortion is merely a severance of the biological connection between the mother and the fetus. Letting someone die, Con says, is not equivalent to murder. Pro replies that abortion nearly inevitably leads to the fetus's death, so Con's first objection fails. Also, the intent is usually to make it so the fetus no longer exists, or to actively kill it.
Con also attacks Pro's claim that abortion leads to death. He cites a definition of death and notes that the end of a fetus does not match the definition of death because the fetus does not lose consciousness. Pro rebuts this with an argumentum ad absurdum. If Con's logic was valid, the death of a coma patient would also not be death.
Pro also argues that abortion should be illegal because women can be pressured into it. Con refutes this effectively by pointing out that people are pressured into things all the time, so it is not a justification for making something illegal.
Con attacks Pro's position by pointing out that most or all countries that have legalized abortion did so for constitutional reasons. That is, those governments decided that they have no authority to ban it. Pro points out that this is merely a practical objection, which has no impact on the moral question of whether or not it should be made illegal.
Pro attempts to argue that consent to have an abortion is sometimes not possible. Con counters this effectively by saying that this is a separate question because it would be a form of extortion and itself a violation of the women's bodily autonomy.
Overall, I think both arguments were somewhat shaky and relied too much on personal opinion and used too many unsourced statements presented as facts. However, both sides are guilty of that. Both sides brought up some points such as constitutional questions and manipulation of women which seemed to be largely extraneous. I think Pro did a better job arguing that the unborn are alive and aborting them is murder than Con did arguing to the contrary. Arguments to Pro.
Neither had bad sources, but they also didn't make as much use of sources to back up their assertions as I would like. Sources are tied. Conduct and S&G both lean toward Pro because of the forfeit and Con's difficult-to-read R1 presentation, but neither of those is sufficiently egregious to award points.
Bonjour. That's all I know
FOR VOTERS: Here is a link to an English translation of the debate.
Il est dommage que le premier débat DART non anglais ait été abandonné au dernier tour. J'ai également découvert que Google Translate n'est pas tout à fait exact, il pourrait donc me falloir un certain temps avant que mon vote RFD ait du sens dans les deux langues.
Tous les électeurs doivent simplement entrer l’adresse Web dans cet outil: http://itools.com/tool/google-translate-web-page-translator
Are you bilingual?
It's in French because I wanted to try something new and to improve my French skills.
Google Translate allows you to type in a url and translate an entire page.
Why does it have to be in French? It's going to make it very hard to vote on it unless either the judges know french or put it in google translate. Even if they do number 2, google translate only allows so many characters at a time.
Je pense que cela n'est pas vraiment d'importe, mais oui, je crois au grand concept sincèrement. Cependant, mes arguments spécifiques ne s'agitent que de raisonnements qui sont pour ce débat seulement.
Je me demande si vous croyez sincèrement ou s'agit-il simplement d'un débat?
If this debate is completed without forfeit, we should consider it as an HoF candidate as the first non-English debate.
Je vois que vous voudriez que le gouvernement interdise l'avortement. C'est un débat très difficile à gagner.
Êtes-vous de langue maternelle française?
Ok. Benediximus (Latin for Good luck)