Instigator / Pro
Points: 38

Abortion Should Be Illegal

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 9 votes the winner is ...
armoredcat
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 63
Description
Definition:
Abortion Should Be illegal - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy should be lawfully federally illegal and banned.
I as Pro will waive Round 1. You as Con will begin your argument in round 1.
Round 1
Published:
Waive. 
Published:
Every year, a group of protestors peacefully march in Washington, D.C., our nation’s capital. They walk through the monuments and city streets with their hats, their shirts, their banners, their flags, and their rose. They’re typically not the loudest group of people, and are not backed by any trained militants or bloodthirsty extremists; they usually receive support from Christian denominations and Republican politicians - from Reagan in ‘87, to our current president and vice-president, Donald Trump and Mike Pence. The right echoes their goals as a point of focus, repeated often by Fox News pundits and the average conservative political commentator. This large group constitutes what is formally known as the March for Life. 

Last year, a group of March for Life attendees consisting of students from Covington Catholic high-school, complete with their MAGA hats and according gear, got into a confrontation with a group of Black Hebrew Israelites and a Native American man. The Black Israelites were largely cast out of the picture when the story was reported, who were more or less just yelling racial slurs at the students from the sidelines. However, the Native American became the point of focus, as the image of him banging his drum in the middle of a group of taunting teenagers became a polarizing image that divided Americans across political lines once again. The subsequent released information can only be described as interesting, with both parties seeming partially at fault, but what seemed definite was the negative effect it had on the March for Life, an effect so ruinous that the March for Life organizers stumbled over themselves apologizing and then apologizing for their apologies, a sign of chaos and panic. 

For the most part, the March for Life organization has rebounded, as the media explosion that detonated after the event focused most of it’s firepower at the Covington Catholic administration and students. However, as they will convene once again a month from now, the March for Life, and the greater aspirations of the pro-life, anti-abortion movement, should not be ignored or accepted. I posit that in a just society, abortion will remain legal, Roe V. Wade will be upheld, and a federal ban on abortion and it’s proponents should be politically and intellectually shunned; as abortion is a practice that causes no pain to anyone except for the mothers performing it.  


Preamble

Heres how its gonna go down:

C1: Abortion Safety 
C2: Fetal pain 
Conclusion


Burden of Proof 

To determine the Burden of Proof in this debate, we should first determine who has the Burden of Proof in debates in general. As explained by Wikipedia:

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

My opponent is making the claim that “Abortion should be illegal”, and is challenging the status quo, given that Roe V. Wade is currently upheld and abortions are legal. I am also making a claim, that “Abortion should be legal (in some cases)”, and since Pro is waiving the first round, it is evident that I am supposed to present a case for the legality of abortion. So the BoP is shared.

However, my opponent must prove that abortion is wrong (and thus, that it should be banned), and I only must prove that abortion is morally neutral [Note: that this only applies to the philosophical debate]  Here’s a syllogism to clear things up: 

P1: Our actions are by default neutral 
P2: Neutral actions should be legal 
C1: If I prove that abortion is neutral, I win the debate (Unless Con argues for the banning of abortion for non-philosophical reasons)


Issues

One issue with our Burdens is that Pro has failed to outline which circumstances under which abortion is legal or banned. If abortion is banned two weeks into the pregnancy, is abortion in this society considered legal or illegal?  If abortion is banned at conception but exceptions are made for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life, is abortion in this society considered legal or illegal? 

I posit that to avoid confusion, my opponent opposes abortion at conception but makes exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life,  and I support keeping abortion at conception legal. I suggest that we keep this debate largely about abortion at conception given that that is the focus of much of the abortion debate and given our 10,000 character limit. I hope my opponent can agree to this. 


Structure

Pro has failed to outline a structure for this debate, so I’ll do so here: 

Pro R1:  Waive 
Con R1: Constructive 
Pro R2: Constructive 
Con R2: Rebuttal to Pro’s Constructive 
Pro R3: Rebuttal to Con’s Constructive 
Con R3: Defense of Constructive 
Pro R4: Defense of Constructive 
Con R4: Waive 


Constructive

Note that I’ll be playing Devil’s Advocate in this debate. I don’t feel too strongly but I am Pro-Life. 


C1: Abortion Safety 

Often, policies, such as the banning of abortions, are reduced to moral concerns rather than practical ones. When the U.S. Prohibited alcohol in January of 1920 this very mistake was made - the idea that alcohol should be banned based on it’s moral and health benefits completely bypassed the concern of whether the ban would actually work - Prohibition is needless to say now remembered as an American disaster. Remember that the resolution of this debate is whether abortion should me made illegal, not purely whether it’s morally correct to have an abortion. 

The bottom line here is that getting legal abortions is safer than getting illegal abortions. 

Per Guttmacher Institute, on the result of South Africa’s Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act: 

By 2002 in South Africa, for example, six years after liberalizing its abortion law, deaths due to unsafe abortion dropped by at least 50% and the number and severity of postabortion complications fell dramatically as well. Similarly, according to Nepalese government hospitals records, soon after abortion was legalized in 2004, the number of women admitted for complications of unsafe abortion and the severity of those complications declined markedly; pregnancy-related deaths in Nepal also declined.

However, the Guttmacher Institute is not the only group that supports these conclusions. Tietze's 1984 study on the effects of abortion legalization explains that roughly 1500 pregnancy deaths have been prevented and life-threatening complications have likely decreased in the order of 10s of thousands due to abortion being legalized. I’ve found the full study and copied it into a word doc. It can be found here.

More modern studies support these general conclusions. Cates, Grimes, and Schulz found that illegal abortions (which are generally performed in more unsafe conditions than legal abortions) decreased after Roe V. Wade passed, complications decreased gradually and deaths decreased sharply.


C2: Fetal Pain 

Since our actions are neutral by default, and it’s tough to prove the neutrality of an action compared to proving the non-neutrality of one, I’ll make a brief argument on fetal pain based on the harm principle. 

Essentially, the idea that the fetus feels pain during most abortions is a misconception. This status as a misconception is backed by a wealth of scientific data and a pretty broad consensus. Despite this, there has been a push by politicians and lawmakers to enact bills informing women of the fetuses’ supposed pain when abortions occur. This article explains: 

Over the last several years, many states, including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, have considered legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia. This year, Arkansas and Georgia enacted such statutes.

Let’s go over the evidence. The above article explains that before the first trimester (which is a way off from conception) the fetus is unlikely to feel pain. This is true because fetuses require recognition of noxious stimuli, recognition of which is provided by thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers are not present until the fetus is 23-30 weeks old. 

I’m not going to go through more evidence in the interest of preserving characters. Since I make the logical assumption that my opponent opposes abortion at conception due to his failiure to clarify his position, it should be noted that it is universally recognized even by pro-life advocates that the fetus does not feel pain at conception. To think otherwise is frankly unimaginably absurd, but I can show my opponent plenty of  studies if he questions this conclusion when it’s time for rebuttals. 


Conclusion

Basically, we’ve proved that the legalization of abortion has a demonstrably positive effect on the safety of the women participating in the abortion, and we’ve proved that the fetus does not feel pain at conception. Therefore, abortion legalization harms no one and helps everyone, and should be legal by default. Unless… 

Human life does not have the right to life. You kill thousands of human cells by scratching an itch. Therefore, for my opponent to prove that abortion is morally wrong, he likely must seek to prove that the fetus is a person with a right to life, or, if not a person, a something with an inherent right to life. Since personhood and “the right to life” are vaguely defined terms, I believe he cannot do so although he likely will be seeking to in his opening case. 

If my opponent chooses to argue from other grounds, then we’ll see what these grounds are in his opening case. That being said, I pass the baton back to you, AKMath. :)

[Note that my opponent should not rebut my case yet provided he accepts the debate structure. He should create his own.]

Round 2
Published:
Well okay, this will be an easy win... FOR ME!!!
Let me start by saying that abortion would still be illegal if it was rape or incest. The only exception would be a danger to the mother's life.
Quite frankly your abortion safety and fetal pain arguments are useless as they don't prove anything. 
The cold hard truth is that abortion IS MURDER. It's plain and simple. I hate to say this, but I don't care if you are pregnant because of rape or incest, you still have no right to MURDER a fetus. 
Why is it murder? Well, let me explain to you. As much as the Left screams and shouts it, a fetus isn't part of the mother's body. A few questions...
1. Just because you are in something doesn't mean you are part of it. If you are in your car, does this mean you are part of your car? What about your house?
2. Now you may say, well the difference between a fetus and you in a car is that the fetus is physically connected to the mother. This again doesn't prove it is part of the mother. Take for example a 5 by 5 brick wall, that has graffiti on it. If I asked you to make another of that wall you wouldn't add the graffiti would you? Even though the graffiti is connected to the brick wall, it is still not a part of the wall per se. While the graffiti may be "connected" to the wall, we wouldn't say that they constitute the wall's parts. 
3. In more than 50% of cases, the baby has a different blood type than the mother. We all know what happens when a blood type that is not yours enters your system.
4. Completely different DNA. It cannot be part of you per se if it doesn't share your DNA. 
5. Unlike all other parts of a woman, the fetus is not independently generated by the woman. It takes a man as well.
6. In 50% of cases, the baby is a different sex than the mother. Are you now about to tell me that in 50% of the time, the mother has male genitalia?  
7. The biggest argument yet are you ready... How is it possible for a mother to die, while her fetus survives? No really, think about that. No other body part could possibly dream of doing that. When the person dies, they die along with all their organs and brain and things like that, but a fetus. can possible live. If it truly is part of the mother's body, how is this possible? 
8. When a woman is pregnant the fetus weakens her immune system. Had the fetus been "part" of the mother there would be no need to locally weaken the woman's immune system.
9. It's illegal to put a pregnant woman on death row.
I really hope I have now proved to you that the fetus is not part of her mother's body. Now... 
The fetus is not part of her mother's body, which means it is its own person. 
10. How many feet, hands, and fingers does a pregnant woman have?
11. Parents talk to and about their unborn child.  They (may) name their unborn child.  They may even play with their child, for example poking or tapping a little elbow sticking out of the mother’s belly.  No one names, plays with, or sings songs to their body parts, at least not seriously.  There is also ample evidence to indicate that there is a tremendous amount of social learning that occurs before a child is even born.  Interactions between twins are especially interesting (and cute).  The parent-child relationship exists before the child is even born precisely because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with one another.  This reality is exactly the reason abortion providers want to avoid mothers seeing ultrasounds, naming their babies, or even referring to their unborn as “he” or “she”.  So the unborn is an individual and not a part of the mother.

BTW, the big debate really lies here. The debate is not whether abortion should(n't) be legal, instead, it lies here. I hope your convinced that a fetus is not part of her mother's body. So you'll have to prove to me that a fetus isn't part of her mother's body yet still not its own person with inalienable rights. 
Anyway, to kill a human that is not your own person is murder.
Murder is federally illegal in every state.
Abortion is Murder.
Abortion should be illegal. 

P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal. 

Published:
[A quick clarification: Since this debate is centered around conception and my opponent has not objected to this, I’d want to apologize for my erroneous use of the word fetus in my conclusion. My opponent doesn’t need to prove the life of the fetus, he needs to prove the life of the embroyo and the fetus follows from that. However, in case my opponent wants to say that I lead him in the wrong direction via my conclusion, it should be clarified that my conclusion was only a suggestion to my opponent on how he would argue, not a definitive proposition like what I said in the Issues section of my R1]


Structural Violation and Conduct

By failing to address my proposed structure in this debate, I’m going to assume that my opponent is okay with the debate structure I presented. However, my structure states that Pro’s R2 should be an opening argument. Nonetheless my opponent has chosen to address my arguments by calling them “useless”. Furthermore, my opponent has offered no real reason for the uselessness of my arguments other than they don’t “prove” anything, saying this: 

“BTW, the big debate really lies here. The debate is not whether abortion should(n't) be legal, instead, it lies here.”

and

P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.

For the record, I did comment on this debate saying playing devil’s advocate for this debate makes it clear how crappy the arguments for being pro-choice are, however this gives my opponent little excuse to call my arguments (which I constructed) names with no justification. Let’s go over my opponents claims: 

I don’t know what my opponent wants from me with regards to whether my arguments “prove” anything. My arguments for abortion rights are pretty clear cut: denying women abortion rights harms them, whereas abortion is essentially harmless because the fetus does not feel pain at conception. I think he is likely referring to how my arguments fail to address moral concerns, but frankly it should be obvious that there is more to any political issue than purely moral concerns (hence my Prohibition example). I also wanted to leave that part mostly to my opponent as it’s tough to prove the moral neutrality of a given act, so I figured I would allow my opponent to explain abortion’s immorality and then rebut that in my R2.

I’d contest my opponents claim that the real debate concerns morality or whether the fetus is part of a woman’s body rather than legality. His resolution clarified that this debate is about making abortion illegal - if he wanted a debate on purely moral grounds he could’ve easily edited his resolution to do so (i.e. Abortion is immoral). Here, he’s simply moving the goalposts to invalidate my arguments and validate his own. 

When addressing his third claim, I think it’s vital for voters to consider conduct due to him calling my actions “stupid”, and has called my arguments “bad” without justification. I take insulting an opponent in a debate seriously. Once again, my opponent has failed to clarify why my claims lack relevance, and I’ve explained above how they do. 

So to conclude: Unwarranted claims, structural violation, and name-calling. The conduct point should be awarded to me. 


Rebuttals

The vast majority of my opponent’s argument centers around the fetus not being part of the mother’s body. Pro falsely assumes that a fetus has a right to life just because it is not part of a mother’s body; even if a fetus isn’t part of a mother’s body, what gives it a right to life? Our Constitution guarantees a right to life to persons:

“. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

What makes the fetus a person, or something else worthy of life? Things should by default not be assumed to have a right to life. Cells don’t. Chairs don’t. 

Another general issue with my opponent’s opening case is that it is fundamentally based on a semantical strawman of the pro-choice position. The point of the pro-choice “my body, my choice” argument is not just that the fetus is part of the mother’s body, but that the fetus is reliant on the mother’s body parts for survival - the mother has a right to her body parts, and does not need to allow the fetus to use them. 

I’m going to avoid rebutting some of my opponents’ specific claims now because due to his previous manner of goalpost-moving suggests that he may turn this debate into an argument over whether the fetus is part of the mother’s body or not. I want to make this absolutely clear: My opponent’s case is fundamentally flawed and relies on false assumptions and strawmanning. 

Let’s get into some of my opponents claims that actually have relevance to the debate: 

“10. How many feet, hands, and fingers does a pregnant woman have?”

This argument frankly is difficult to understand as it seems as if he’s asking a rhetorical question to imply that since fetuses have hands, feet, and fingers than they are human persons, which is just illogical. If feet, hands, and fingers qualify you for personhood, are paraplegics disqualified from being a person? 

At conception, the embroyo does not have feet, hands, or fingers. In fact, these are only fully formed by month 3

Parents talk to and about their unborn child.  They (may) name their unborn child. They may even play with their child, for example poking or tapping a little elbow sticking out of the mother’s belly.  No one names, plays with, or sings songs to their body parts, at least not seriously. 

This is frankly not a good criteria for personhood. Maybe it’s sort of a case for the embroyo not being part of the mother’s body, but this does not imply personhood nor the right to life. I can talk to a rock. I can talk about a rock. I can name my rock. I can play with a rock. I can theoretically do all of this completely logically and seriously. A rock is not a person. 

There is also ample evidence to indicate that there is a tremendous amount of social learning that occurs before a child is even born.  Interactions between twins are especially interesting (and cute).  The parent-child relationship exists before the child is even born precisely because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with one another.

All the examples listed, per Con’s own source, refer to the life of the fetus multiple weeks after conception. Perhaps the embroyo develops into a person, but it is not at conception. Reminder that this debate is in reference to conception and my opponent has not objected to this. [Note that my opponent responding to my Issues section of my R1 where I made the conception suggestion would not violate my structure given that Issue’s was a clarifying section and not an actual Constructive.]

My opponent says that the parent child relationship exists because the child is an individual and only individuals can be social with each other. However, social interaction does not necessarily imply that one’s life has a value worthy of illegalizing an act that violates that value. Ants participate in plenty of social interaction. Should we make it illegal to step on an ant?

“This reality is exactly the reason abortion providers want to avoid mothers seeing ultrasounds,”

This is not an argument. I hope my opponent intended for it to serve as a conclusion. If the mother thinks that the embroyo/fetus is a person upon seeing it, that doesn’t mean it is indeed a person.

“naming their babies, or even referring to their unborn as “he” or “she”.”

Once again, not an argument. Just because doctors treat babies as human persons doesn’t mean they are. Ancient doctors thought humans had "bad blood" and wanted to cut you to let it out. Could I see the doctor’s supporting evidence for their views on the personhood of the embroyo?

“So you'll have to prove to me that a fetus isn't part of her mother's body yet still not its own person with inalienable rights. “

No I don’t. The Burden of Proof is shared. I have to support my opening constructive arguments (as they are the claims I made), and you have to support yours. My opening contained nothing of the non-personhood of the fetus, and yours did in fact contain arguments concerning the personhood of the fetus. You have to support your claims, and in my rebuttals I have demonstrated that you have been unable to do so. Don’t shift the BoP without reason. 

“Anyway, to kill a human that is not your own person is murder.”
 
Just because the fetus is of the human species does not make it human. My skin cells are of the human species. Therefore, we are talking about personhood, and you have not supported your claims on the personhood of the fetus sufficiently. 
 
 
Conclusion
 
In interest of character preservation, I’ll keep it brief: My opponent’s conduct in this debate has not been good. His arguments have been insufficiently proved and sufficiently rebutted. His bold and crude claim that this debate is an “easy win” is not aging well. 
 
[Note if my structure is unclear, my opponent should address this argument next round per the structure. He should address my opening case in this round.]

Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Extend. I have nothing to rebut, as in this round I round was supposed to defend my case from my opponent’s rebuttals to my constructive, and he has posted zero rebuttals. So instead, I’ll clarify some stuff from my last round and crystallize why I should win the debate, as I’ll be forced to waive the final round. I recommend that my opponent should concede (simply say in your argument box “I concede”) if he feels he cannot continue to debate; I’ll accept his concession. I’d rather have him do that so that we can get voting going and not put this debate into yet another seven day purgatory.


A Clarification

I said this last round: 

“My opening contained nothing of the non-personhood of the fetus”

However, I did in fact say: 

Human life does not have the right to life. You kill thousands of human cells by scratching an itch. Therefore, for my opponent to prove that abortion is morally wrong, he likely must seek to prove that the fetus is a person with a right to life, or, if not a person, a something with an inherent right to life. Since personhood and “the right to life” are vaguely defined terms, I believe he cannot do so although he likely will be seeking to in his opening case. 
To clarify, I said this in the conclusion, just to segway my case into what I thought would be my opponent’s case. Pro says: 

“So you'll have to prove to me that a fetus isn't part of her mother's body yet still not its own person with inalienable rights. “

This is still a flawed statement. Pro tells me I have to prove a statement (which is irrelevant to the debate as I clarified last round) wrong, and falsely assumes that we should assume a fetus to be a person. Like I said:

“Things should by default not be assumed to have a right to life. Cells don’t. Chairs don’t.”


Crystallization

Arguments

My argument goes almost completely uncontested given my opponent’s forfeit. My opponent tried to cast my arguments off as being irrelevant, but did this in the wrong round and also failed to justify these claims. This should be reason enough to award argument points. 

Pro’s arguments rely on fundamental misunderstandings of the pro-choice position (it’s not necessarily that the fetus is part of the woman, it’s that it is reliant on her) and false assumptions by incorrectly implying that since the fetus is not a part of a woman’s body, it is it’s own independent person. I’ve also successfully rebutted all of my opponent’s points. 

Sources

 I’ve sourced every claim I’ve made in this debate that requires a source. Pro has failed to do so here: 

3. In more than 50% of cases, the baby has a different blood type than the mother. We all know what happens when a blood type that is not yours enters your system.
4. Completely different DNA. It cannot be part of you per se if it doesn't share your DNA. 
5. Unlike all other parts of a woman, the fetus is not independently generated by the woman. It takes a man as well.
6. In 50% of cases, the baby is a different sex than the mother. Are you now about to tell me that in 50% of the time, the mother has male genitalia? 

and here:

8. When a woman is pregnant the fetus weakens her immune system. Had the fetus been "part" of the mother there would be no need to locally weaken the woman's immune system.
9. It's illegal to put a pregnant woman on death row.

Conduct:

Pro has violated argument structure by addressing my arguments in his R2 opening when they were supposed to be attacked in R3 and calling me and my arguments names here: 

“Quite frankly your abortion safety and fetal pain arguments are useless as they don't prove anything.”

and here:

P.S. I think it was very stupid of you to play devil's advocate here as I doubt you'll be able to make good arguments (you haven't so far). I don't mean to dismiss your round 1 argument, it's just that both the things you mentioned have no relevance to why abortion should really be illegal.

He also forfeited R3. 

S&G

Don’t find any issue with my opponent’s spelling. Should be tied.


Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Waive. Thank you AKmath for the debate and happy voting!
Added:
np mate
#42
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
Thanks for the vote supa
Contender
#41
Added:
Getting my votes in and comment
#40
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Thank you for voting on this!
Contender
#39
Added:
--> @armoredcat
no problem
#38
Added:
--> @whiteflame, @RationalMadman
Thank you for voting!
Contender
#37
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @Singularity, @Pinkfreud08, @Patmos
Thanks to all voters!
Contender
#36
Added:
FYI, another moderator might rule differently, but to me this is in essence a FF. Pro waived R1, making his R2 effectively his R1, and forfeited thereafter.
#35
Added:
--> @AKmath
How are the args coming? Idk if you read your pms
Contender
#34
Added:
--> @AKmath
u runnin outta time!
Contender
#33
Added:
--> @AKmath
This isn't me, but some people are pro choice exclusively because setting the kid up for adoption messes up the kid. What's your response to this?
#32
Added:
--> @AKmath
Reminder that since you haven't contested the structure you should rebut my opening case in R3 and nothing more. Don't worry about what I just posted until next round.
Contender
#31
Added:
Playing pro-choice devil's advocate in this debate has really helped me realize how crappy the pro-choice arguments are.
Contender
#30
Added:
Almost thereeeee
Contender
#29
Added:
--> @armoredcat
Less than a day now!
Instigator
#28
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
75% FF, hence
Case is preffered to CON and is extended and refuted, giving the advantage to CON
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50% of the debate was forfeited.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Fulliousious Forfeitiouluous
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50% F
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The forfeits alone justify the vote, though the arguments do as well. Con addresses every argument Pro makes in the debate and retains the strength of his own arguments throughout the debate, as all of Pro's responses amount to a separate case with no real clash. I also award conduct, as Pro included a few personal jabs at Con in among the few arguments he posted, including calling Con "stupid" for taking on the devil's advocate position. I (and many others who see people like Con taking on and defending positions they may not personally agree with) applaud efforts to engage in debates like this where they stretch outside of their personal biases. It's not simple, particularly on an ideologically charged issue like this.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Gist:
Pro chose to insist proof “don't prove anything,” and offer no real challenge to con’s case; do uninspired insults, and then drop out. Comparatively, con offered a case.
1. March for life
This is really just part of the preamble, not debate points in itself. Still of educational value of course.
2. BoP
Given the forfeiture, this alone could carry the debate. Which is ironic, as I also consider it part of the preamble, rather than debate points.
3. Issues ... Structure ... Constructive
Skimming at this point; but all preamble material.
4. Abortion Safety
Okay, into the contentions...
This one starts with a subpoint about prohibition, using that not working to compare to abortion. I suggest such points use an unlined but non-bold heading.
The South African abortion deaths was a good comparative example to bring up, of problems suffered by citizens if abortion were illegal. The follow up of similar studies was also effective.
Con counters that it “are useless as they don't prove anything.” The proof was given, expanded upon, etc. and not countered. Basically, game over for the debate.
5. Fetal Pain
No pain until the “fetus is 23-30 weeks old.” With a very high-quality source backing it up. Thus, until the 23rd week, some harm other than pain should be shown by pro to support his claim. But instead he insists proof “don't prove anything,” effectively dropping this point.
6. Conclusion
An expansion of the neutrality principle used earlier, and the example of scratching an itch also killing technically human cells.
7. Gish Gallop
Con drops pro’s case, and offers a wall of text Gish Gallop; 11 different unsupported assertions. He proceeded to call con stupid for engaging in debates...
There are various ways to handle Gish Gallops, but at the end of the day, I as a voter choose to not reward such obvious BS by giving it the time of day. Try the Chebacco Defense next time, at least it’s entertaining.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Honestly, the Gist section would have been enough for this debate (which is effectively a full forfeit).
Sources:
Pro used a couple, one was pretty decent (but would only apply to late term abortions), and the other was a propaganda piece he used as part of his mind reading demonstration. Con on the other hand researched a case, even citing an academic journal to prove one of his key contentions.
Conduct:
Base insults and forfeiture.
S&G:
Leaving this technically tied, but pro used a damned wall of text without formatting. It honestly looks copy/pasted from somewhere else.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeited most of the debate.
Conduct to con.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
pro forfeited 3/4 of the debate rounds