Instigator / Pro
38
1443
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Topic
#1715

Abortion Should Be Illegal

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
27
Better sources
16
18
Better legibility
7
9
Better conduct
0
9

After 9 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...

Username
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
63
1593
rating
9
debates
77.78%
won
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.

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:

75% FF, hence

Case is preffered to CON and is extended and refuted, giving the advantage to CON

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:

50% of the debate was forfeited.

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:

Fulliousious Forfeitiouluous

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:

50% F

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, that's 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:

Pro forfeited most of the debate.

Conduct to con.

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:

pro forfeited 3/4 of the debate rounds