Instigator / Pro
1
1314
rating
50
debates
13.0%
won
Topic

You're not as pro life as you think you are

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
0
1

With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1676
rating
44
debates
79.55%
won
Description
~ 1,196 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes. For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
This debate is more for the individuals with a so called pro Life position unless you wish to play opposition advocate.

Here we will discover just how in depth your position goes. That is to support life and not abortion. But is it all life? Is it all things that are connected to sustaining life and what preceded it? I won't go too far into this right now. I want you to put your thinking caps on and throw away that box your mind has been placed into.

As you explain your position in detail, prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies.

Please comment, Send a message for clarity or questions

Round 1
Pro
Description will serve as first round.
Con
BoP stays on PRO as Oromagi states(which is furtherly stated from 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"

Since PRO did not state that the BoP is shared or is on CON, it is safe to assume it is on PRO.

PRO’s BoP: You(CON) are not as Pro-Life(anti-abortion) as you think you are

Under the inspection in English language, CON would argue at least one of these two:
  • I am more Pro-Life than I think
  • I am as Pro-life as I think I am

It may not be clear yet of which one I should prove, but we all agree on one thing the CON side has to prove:
  • PRO did not sufficiently prove that I am less pro-life than I think I am.

Contention 1: PRO has not proved that I am less Pro-life than I think

PRO did not bring anything new here, and he has confirmed that I must use the description as the first round “argument”, so I will do just that.

“Here we will discover just how in depth your position goes. That is to support life and not abortion. But is it all life? Is it all things that are connected to sustaining life and what preceded it? I won't go too far into this right now. I want you to put your thinking caps on and throw away that box your mind has been placed into.”

This statement does not prove that I am less Pro-Life than I think. In fact, since this statement is open to all people that would read it, it would assert that the acceptor of this debate is less pro-life than they think regardless of who it is, which cannot be justified whatsoever.

This statement is inefficient as it does not contain any proof of anything inside. In fact, it doesn’t prove that anyone is less pro-life than they think.

Conclusions:
  • PRO’s description does not prove that someone(anyone) is less pro-life than they think.
  • Since PRO did not succeed in proving that I am less pro-life than I think, he has failed to defend his BoP, which, would mean he loses the debate if he fails in doing so. CON’s job here is just to prove PRO’s central claim(I am less pro-life than I think) wrong, and PRO did not even prove that he is correct.


Contention 2: I am at least as Pro-life as I think I am

I have always gone away with a non-pro-life position in the last months. In fact, this debate[1](Yes, I am anc2006. Now stop mentioning about my cringy past-self).

In fact, this is the last time I have debated regarding abortion[2], and I can confirm that I hold that ideology when I am typing this as my “abortion” column on the BIG ISSUES windows is Pro-abortion, which is non-pro-life[3]. I know I cannot prove that without leaking vital information about myself, but neither can PRO prove otherwise.

Now, onto the big question: Where do I stand on an actual quiz that quizzes me whether I am pro-life or not. This might not show up properly to show my results, but I can confirm that:
  • The answers[4] were No, yes, no, no, no, no, yes, yes, 0%, yes, and I can confirm that I did it with my own, authentic, worldview. I didn’t try to be extremist just to ironically prove my opponent wrong.
  • These answers give me a somewhat Pro-Choice result, and I believe myself to be a person of pro-choice, which is NOT pro-life. And because Pro-choice=pro-choice, I am as pro-life as I think I am.

Moreover, many people had complained that they aren’t actually pro-choice in real life but still got pro-choice as a result[5], that would mean I might be more pro-life than I think since I might be less pro-choice than I think.

Conclusions:
  • I think I am not pro-life
  • A quiz says that I am not pro-life
  • Because not pro-life and not pro-life are equal, thus I am as pro-life as I think I am, which would prove my opponent wrong.
  • Some non-pro-choice people gets the pro-choice position, meaning there might be a chance that I am more Pro-life than I think I am(less pro-choice, since the test has a better tendency of dispensing Pro-choice results).


I rest my case. PRO can inquire me of anything and since I think I am already pro-choice, I will either get a result that I am more pro-life than I think(Pro-life) or get a result that I am as pro-life as I think(pro-choice). Neither prove that I am LESS pro-life than I think since I am as non-pro-life as the spectrum goes.

Sources:
[1]https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-legal/56/
[2]https://www.debate.org/anc2006/
[3]ibid
[4]http://www.youthink.com/quiz.cfm?action=go_detail&obj_id=1700&filter=popular&time_span=latest&sub_action=take
[5]http://www.youthink.com/quiz.cfm?action=go_detail&obj_id=1700&filter=popular&time_span=latest



Round 2
Pro
This is a good job at confusing. You did a job well done. So you're not actually "pro life" MEANING anti-abortion as the premise stated, is that right?
Con
I was expecting PRO to put evidence of why I am less pro-life than I think I am. There is none, which is disappointing.

I extend every point above, because PRO had not even made any real effort into disproving me, let alone proving his premise in the first place.

PRO is supposed to bear and defend his BoP and my job is none other than to disprove whoever holds the PRO position. My job is done unless PRO proves something that can qualify as a reason supporting the claim that I am less pro-life than I think.
Round 3
Pro
In order for a counter argument to be made, you're going to have to answer the question.There is confusion here and I can't validate or invalidate anything under confusion.


So are you pro-life(anti -abortion) or not? 

No deviating, just face the Truth.


Con
So are you pro-life(anti-abortion) or not?
Although I don't need to answer this question, I need to in order to progress through the debating process. That is what Mall does in his regularity.

In this case, NO. I am Pro-choice. 

PRO cannot prove his BoP since I think I am as non-pro-life as the spectrum can get, he could not prove that I am LESS pro-life than I think. That would be asking me to run behind the last-place guy in a run. Semantically it is not possible.

Extent R2 arguments as no new points are needed.

Round 4
Pro
" Although I don't need to answer this question, I need to in order to progress through the debating process. That is what Mall does in his regularity."


So you mean to say that when someone is in confusion, you expect them to debate blind? Are you that low to take advantage like that?  You don't need to be intellectually honest and answer a question. That's the way it seems.You were informed of doing something that would help a person, you utterly deflect from it.

I got to hold your feet to the fire to do this exchange in a constructive fashion. If I have questions typically or occasionally, there should be no problem. It's not just about debating , proving things, you have to communicate. 



"In this case, NO. I am Pro-choice. "

Is this why you deflected when being asked the first time?


"PRO cannot prove his BoP since I think I am as non-pro-life as the spectrum can get, he could not prove that I am LESS pro-life than I think. That would be asking me to run behind the last-place guy in a run. Semantically it is not possible."

You're not anti-abortion as the premise in the description specifically , specifically states and points out. Instead of using all that obscure language in the previous round, just come out and say "I'm actually not anti-abortion." That's what the premise is dealing with. Those who are pro life (anti-abortion) and can be vetted
down to the "T" to discover just how truly pro life they are.

So you don't even fit the criteria.


Thanks for stopping by.



Con
I thank PRO for attempting to put something constructive in the last round response.

So you mean to say that when someone is in confusion, you expect them to debate blind? Are you that low to take advantage like that?  You don't need to be intellectually honest and answer a question. That's the way it seems.You were informed of doing something that would help a person, you utterly deflect from it.

I got to hold your feet to the fire to do this exchange in a constructive fashion. If I have questions typically or occasionally, there should be no problem. It's not just about debating , proving things, you have to communicate. 
OBJECTION: I restate Oromagi's regular quote that would be extremely useful:
"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"
This is the debate section, not the forums. In the debate section, PRO, which is my opponent, who voluntarily attempted to debate, will, of course, bear the BoP of proving that I am less pro-life than I think. Debating here means winning and losing, and debating and proving things are MUCH more important than sheer communications because that is what DEBATING is. PRO has failed to do so, instead, he posted arguments in a Forum-Esque fashion that inquires but doesn't explain. PRO has failed to fulfill the BoP, and since CON is to point out fallacies of PRO's BoP and Proof, I have fulfilled my job since PRO has not even given me any constructive proof about why I am less pro-life than I think.

And yes, I am technically that low to take advantage like that. In fact, I did not take any advantage at all because I am clearly welcome to debate here and I clearly proved that PRO did not fulfill his BoP.

Deflecting a question, in this case, wouldn't be so bad, consider:
  • Answering questions are not needed to disprove PRO's BoP
  • I only delayed for one round and I had answered the question, so it is not needed to make a big fuss and crust about the issue.
  • I already answered the question in Round 1 before PRO asked it. Read the text. It is helpful.
My "response" in R1:
Conclusions:
  • I think I am not pro-life
  • A quiz says that I am not pro-life
  • Because not pro-life and not pro-life are equal, thus I am as pro-life as I think I am, which would prove my opponent wrong.
  • Some non-pro-choice people gets the pro-choice position, meaning there might be a chance that I am more Pro-life than I think I am(less pro-choice, since the test has a better tendency of dispensing Pro-choice results).
PRO persisted asking even though I already stated my answer to that question prior.

You're not anti-abortion as the premise in the description specifically , specifically states and points out. Instead of using all that obscure language in the previous round, just come out and say "I'm actually not anti-abortion." That's what the premise is dealing with. Those who are pro life (anti-abortion) and can be vetted
down to the "T" to discover just how truly pro life they are.
OBJECTION: English languages ensure that pro-choice individuals can, indeed, fit the criteria. Let me revisit the Criteria.
This debate is more for the individuals with a so called pro Life position unless you wish to play opposition advocate.
So, this means that Pro-life individuals are only "more" welcome than pro-choice individuals, but the description DOES NOT say that only Pro-life individuals can enter. So this means more or less, Pro-choice individuals are allowed to accept this debate. Typing "[For Pro-Life Individuals Only]" would make the debate much more winnable by PRO the individual. And you know what is a more effective system?
  1. Go on the Forums and ask who is Pro-life. If yes, proceed, if no, repeat from the beginning.
  2. Ask that person whether he wants a debate or not. If yes, proceed, if no, repeat from the beginning.
  3. Instigate a debate FOR him. If he accepts, have a discourse on this topic. If no, repeat from the beginning.
Look! This affair is much easier to regulate. PRO voluntarily put this debate on the page with absolutely NO restrictions at all towards any user, and rhetorically non-pro-life people can also accept, that would mean I DO, In fact, fit the criteria. And no, I technically did not disprove PRO because he did not bring ANY reasons that I am less pro-life than I think. Meets someone unexpected, and complaining takes over all the supposed detailed inquiry.

I have successfully fulfilled my job, which is to prove that PRO did not sufficiently prove that I am less pro-life than I think.
All my points in round one remain undisproved and rock-solid.
Thank for y'all voters for reading this text. If you find my arguments more convincing, please vote CON.