Instigator / Pro
1
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2167

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

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

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:

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.