Instigator / Pro
12
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2193

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
3
6
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
2

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
17
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
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

-->
@blamonkey

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.

-->
@blamonkey

thanks coach, what reason will you remove it now?

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@MisterChris

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

Not really. I simply asked PRO to make a pro choice argument and attack my position. Which I laid out to him in R2.

-->
@David
@blamonkey
@Vader
@bmdrocks21
@Dr.Franklin

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.

-->
@MisterChris

Your crtieria for Pro was abusive. Take it if you dish it out

-->
@RationalMadman

That's an abusive criteria

-->
@MisterChris

No you didn't. Saying you oppose it doesn't mean you actually do.

-->
@RationalMadman

I fulfilled my BoP. I demonstrated I fall under the category of Pro Life. You're simply voting out of a silly grudge

-->
@Mall

>> "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.

-->
@Mall

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.