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 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two 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
[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.
HOW CAN I ARGUE OR COUNTER WHEN YOU HESITATE TO THROW THE FIRST PUNCH?
"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."
P1: CON is against abortionP2: The definition of Pro-Life is opposing abortion and euthanasia.C1: CON is Pro-Life.
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.
This debate as proposed by Pro was a miscarriage from the start. In fact, there appears to be no effort of intellectual coitus, let alone conception on Pro's part. Therefore, to follow the analogy, no abortion to debate over. Here's the vote assessment:
Argument: Though Pro maintains throughout all four rounds that it was Pro's intent to effectively waive the first round to "[know] the extent of your position." However, reading the Description with much care, word for word, there is no indication whatsoever that it is Pro's intent to "waive" the round, that is, to abdicate presenting an argument in order to first "[know] the extent of [Con's] position." One would naturally assume without the intent spelled out in Description, Con will present an argument to conclude, not to begin round 1. Moreover, the Description does not adequately present an argument, as claimed by Pro's r1. It contains questions. Questions do not suffice for arguments. Whereas Con correctly argues that given the proposal by debate title and the Description, the BoP resides with Pro's position. Pro even finally acknowledges Con's pro-life position, but doe not rebut the position by meeting his own BoP to challenge that Con is "not as pro-life as you think you are. Points to Con
Sources: Pro completely ignores sourcing any material given until r4, when Pro merely copies Con's definition of "pro-life" in r3 without ever contending the definition in Pro'd r4. Con's sourcing offers one source, defining BoP, but, otherwise, is also lacking source material. one the basis of at least one legitimate source, Con wins the points.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's deceptive conduct by r1, baiting in r2 "Now come on with it" [demanding an argument from Con to Pro's expectation], belligerence in r3 assuming the lack of understanding is on Con, and r4, carrying on the taunting of r3 by demanding Con's BoP when it is Pro's BoP to prove Con "is not as pro-life as he thinks he is" and never presenting any argument to that point, Pro loses ;the conduct point.
Con doesn't have an argument to survey in this debate, that is unfortunate as the voting requirements imply that there will always be an argument present. Let me help the voting moderators to see the flaw:
The debate is about whether or not Con is as pro-life as he thinks he is. The problem is that Con tries to prove that he thinks he is pro-life without ever once touching on whether or not he ACTUALLY IS as pro-life as he thinks he is. On top of this, the description of a debate is agreed upon by both parties upon acceptance and voters are entitled to enforce it on top of normal voting requirements. In this debate the following was stipulated (and a victimised, exasperated Pro brings this up in Round 3):
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
It is evident that if there was misunderstanding between the two, it could only be Pro's fault if Con did PM or Comment for inquiry and then proved that Pro deceived him. Unfortunately this was not the case. It appears as if Con decided to completely and utterly ignore this aspect of the debate because it is he who keeps demanding Pro to elaborate on the inconsistencies between how pro-life he thinks he is vs how pro-life he actually is without he himself remotely affirming that he is as pro-life as he thinks he is.
The syllogism doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He hasn't proven that he opposes abortion and euthanasia nor the scale/strength to which he holds this opposition. He solely states that he thinks he is pro-life and that his belief is self-affirming. This is bullshit and a completely flawed way to reverse burden of proof onto Pro of a topic that says 'not'. Pro did this to not bait someone into accepting 'You are as pro-life as you think you are' assuming that they were against it.
Pro's arguments are absolutely valid and his conduct is impeccable given how abusive Con was to him and how Con toyed with him throughout. Pro's primary argument is that Con never once elaborates on 'how pro-life' he is (Round 2 by Pro) and Con never once addresses this with the slightest sufficient argumentation worth noting in this RFD.
R1:
Both sides wasted it.
R2:
Pro points to the description, which con apparently mistook for rhetoric. I do not agree with the claim that it was an ambush, as much as it was weird without some exploratory questions.
Pro makes an argument that he is pro life.
R3:
Pro reminds con that he should "prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies"
Con reaffirms that he is indeed pro-life.
R4:
Pro wisely points out that there are different levels of being pro life, but never asks con which he would be classified within. He seems to argue that it was con's job to list the inconsistencies of his belief.
Con reminds pro that he gave no limiting criteria, which should have given pro the opportunity to argue some inconsistency, to which he refused.
Arguments: Con
See above. No challenge to con's status as absolutely pro life in all cases was made (as much as he might have taken a conduct hit had he made special pleading to walk back his position on certain not thinking he's pro life in common sense abortion cases).
Pro, next time if you want questions answered in R1 (or at any other point), ask them!
Sources: Leaning con, but tied.
The dictionary was well used, but I don't find the margin to be excessive enough to warrant 2 points (as a % it's great, but alone low magnitude).
S&G: tied.
Pro, please get control of your caps lock. Also please use the quotation tool when quoting multiple lines of someones case.
Both of you, please get control of the bolding tool. Bold a key word here and there for emphasis, not whole paragraphs.
His syllogism also fails because it says 'and euthanasia' and he never says he's against euthanasia in P1 but that's hardly the issue.
thanks coach, what reason will you remove it now?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Rational Madman // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points Pro
>Reason for Decision:
What about Con's BoP to prove he's as pro-life as he thinks he is?
Where was hit burden of proof met? Asinine trolling amd cowardice plague this debate. Pro consistently requests Con to prove that he is actually Pro-life and has actively opposed euthanasia and abortion through actions. All Con does is lost a syllogism to prove he thinks he is pro-life.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote failed to check all the necessary boxes pursuant to the Voting Guidelines. Specifically, There are three criteria that need to be met for Conduct points to be awarded:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
None of these criteria are met.
Argument points also fail to meet specific criteria. I need to know why Con's arguments/counterarguments were insufficient per the Voting Policy clauses listed below:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points.
My apologies for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
That logic is supremely flawed. If I say I believe something then you may believe without reasonable doubt that I believe it unless proven otherwise. The job isn't for me to prove I'm pro life but for my opponent to prove that I'm not when I say I am.
He did. He asked you what you mean by pro-life and how you have gone about ascertaining that you truly are pro-life. All you did was say you believe you are, not that you actually are.
Not really. I simply asked PRO to make a pro choice argument and attack my position. Which I laid out to him in R2.
Mall and I could use a few more votes on this one.
The overwhelming majority of pro-life women who have a down syndrome pregnancy choose abortion.
Your crtieria for Pro was abusive. Take it if you dish it out
That's an abusive criteria
No you didn't. Saying you oppose it doesn't mean you actually do.
I fulfilled my BoP. I demonstrated I fall under the category of Pro Life. You're simply voting out of a silly grudge
>> "prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies"
All you had to do was in the first round ask your questions. Instead, even after con gave an argument that they are pro-life, you are refusing to challenge it.
I know I have taken advantage of this topic. I suggest you to put that only pro-life individuals can accept so that nothing can be exploited.