Instigator / Pro
12
1417
rating
27
debates
18.52%
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
3
6
Sources points
4
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
2
2

With 3 votes and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
17
1687
rating
28
debates
83.93%
won
Description
~ 1,190 / 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
The description will serve as the first round.
Con
Thanks, Mall.

Resolved: You're not as pro life as you think you are.

PRO carries BoP

"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."

PRO has not submitted an R1, thus PRO has not fulfilled BoP and his claim is unsubstantiated.

CON looks forward to PRO's R2, where hopefully he shall fulfill his BoP.

Round 2
Pro
Remember what the description says.
It gives whoever that takes the challenge the floor first to explain their pro life position so called, in detail.

Then we see if it holds up. How do I argue without knowing the extent of your position?
Don't try to flip this to your advantage.

Now come on with it.



Con
Thanks Mall.

Resolved: You're not as pro life as you think you are.

PRO's resolution posits that CON's pro life position is misleading. CON disagrees. CON still interprets that it is PRO's BoP to prove the resolution.


[The description] gives whoever that takes the challenge the floor first to explain their pro life position so called, in detail.

Then we see if it holds up. How do I argue without knowing the extent of your position?
Don't try to flip this to your advantage.
PRO attempts to shift BoP onto CON. No indication was given in the debate description that CON would have either the BoP or the first argument. PRO's description suggests the debate will be on abortion. CON interpreted the questions and vague commentary that follow as rhetorical in nature, and thus PRO has unduly ambushed CON with the task of making preemptive defensive arguments. 

Regardless, if CON were to have BoP it would defeat the purpose of the term: "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." 

PRO still has not substantiated their claim that CON's pro-life position is misleading. CON urges voters to vote accordingly. 

That said, CON will offer a preemptive argument to satisfy PRO. 

P1: CON is against abortion
P2: The definition of Pro-Life is opposing abortion and euthanasia.
C1: CON is Pro-Life.

Now the BoP is on Pro to prove that CON's position is misleading. 

CON looks forward to PRO's next round





Round 3
Pro
"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."

I'm sorry you misunderstood this and perhaps wasted your time.

You glossed over as it appears where it says "HERE WE WILL DISCOVER JUST HOW IN DEPTH YOUR POSITION GOES".... ONCE AGAIN, HOW CAN I ARGUE OR COUNTER WHEN YOU HESITATE TO THROW THE FIRST PUNCH?

I guess this was your big advantage but jujitsu is my thing. This is how this was set up.

The description goes on to conclude "AS YOU EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION IN DETAIL, PREPARE FOR QUESTIONS AND EXPOSING OF ANY INVALIDITIES AND INCONSISTENCIES."


I'm arguing based off your position. What don't you understand ABOUT that?

That's too bad if you truly assumed the premise had more to it than what it said.






Con
Thanks Mall. 

Resolved: You're not as pro life as you think you are.

CON still interprets that it is PRO's BoP to prove the resolution.

CON agrees that there was a semantic miscommunication involved regarding the description. CON also emphasizes that the questions and commentary that PRO used in their description are easily understood to be rhetorical in nature. 

HOW CAN I ARGUE OR COUNTER WHEN YOU HESITATE TO THROW THE FIRST PUNCH?

The main complaint of PRO is moot, as the resolution already presupposes my position as a pro-life advocate and there is a clear and universal definition of "pro-life." Simply, "anti-abortion." 

Regardless,

despite the semantic misunderstanding and the undue BoP, CON offered a concise argument cementing their position as a pro life advocate:

P1: CON is against abortion
P2: The definition of Pro-Life is opposing abortion and euthanasia.
C1: CON is Pro-Life.

PRO has not responded to this argument. 

CON looks forward to PRO's response.





Round 4
Pro
"The main complaint of PRO is moot, as the resolution already presupposes my position as a pro-life advocate and there is a clear and universal definition of "pro-life." Simply, "anti-abortion." 

Regardless,

despite the semantic misunderstanding and the undue BoP, CON offered a concise argument cementing their position as a pro life advocate:

P1: CON is against abortion
P2: The definition of Pro-Life is opposing abortion and euthanasia.
C1: CON is Pro-Life."

The whole idea behind this was to discover how much pro-life are you. Folks that are pro-life have their standards. Some people have their exceptions to their position. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion except in the case of sexual assault. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion except for in the case of incest. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion  except in the case of conception. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion except in the case of the mother's life being at risk.

So this wasn't about the definition of pro-life ,this was about again, how vast or how deep does your position go in the support of life.

The whole idea was an attempt to find any inconsistency
in your position and to really see if your position of supporting life is really wholesome as you think it is.


So now hopefully you may understand better and perhaps may want to try again with starting a new session for this debate challenge.




Con
Thanks, Mall.

"The whole idea behind this was to discover how much pro-life are you. Folks that are pro-life have their standards. Some people have their exceptions to their position. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion except in the case of sexual assault. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion except for in the case of incest. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion  except in the case of conception. Some are pro-life as far as no abortion except in the case of the mother's life being at risk."
CON contends that PRO had enough information to create arguments from the get-go. Consider that all Pro-Choice positions want to legalize abortion regardless of circumstance until a certain time in the development of the baby. This is so polar opposite from CON's position that PRO had every opportunity to create an argument that was Pro Choice. Instead, PRO asks for unnecessary detail. When detail was provided but it was not up to PRO's standard, they refused to argue at all. 

CON stated that they were against abortion, and did not provide any exceptions. 

PRO should have operated on that information. 

Regardless,

P1: CON is against abortion
P2: The definition of Pro-Life is opposing abortion and euthanasia.
C1: CON is Pro-Life.

This argument goes unrefuted.

PRO protests:
this wasn't about the definition of pro-life ,this was about again, how vast or how deep does your position go in the support of life.

The resolution states: You're not as pro life as you think you are.

Under all rules of semantics, if CON is perfectly PRO-life then it refutes the resolution. 

This debate was a dud, CON asks PRO to revise their descriptions in the future to make clear what sort of "special rules" they intend to impose on their opponent.