You're not as pro life as you think you are
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
This is a foregone conclusion, as only con was interested in debating.
From the description: "This debate is more for the individuals with a so called pro Life position unless you wish to play opposition advocate." Therefore, con's level of allegiance to whatever cause does not make him a bad faith debater. He even offered pro a path to victory by pointing out the resolution would be affirmed if pro was able to prove any amount of variance in his level of belief.
Let's see, con explains in the first round with sources (his old profile was strong evidence to his placement on the metric in question, and with it's existence being denied, it made the pro case laughable) that he's pro-choice. Pro repeatedly asks him about that and denies he wrote that, and then refuses to debate insisting that con does not fit some unknown criteria. This conduct poisoned the debate.
This should be interesting. I'm expecting PRO to utilize something along the lines of the argument presented in Thompson's "In Defense of Abortion" paper
Only 1 day left. Just to remind you.
I'm not an authoritarian.
If I am not mistaken, you are authoritarian right?
I'm pro life and therefore:
-Want abortion banned and punished.
-Want the 2nd amendment, which defends against the biggest mass shooter in history (tyrannical governments)
-Want poverty ended, and realize that the war on poverty is a counterproductive failure that needs to be overturned.
-Want the minimum wage abolished, so low income people find better paying jobs on their own.
-And more, that I don't feel like listing right now.