Global Warming is a more pressing issue than Abortion
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I've been curious which issue is more concerning
more pressing: more important, influential, should be resolved first
- Two of PRO’s definitions of “more pressing” (more important, influential) ignores the time-sensitivity of the word “pressing,” which is defined as “(of a problem, need, or situation) requiring quick or immediate action or attention.” by the esteemed Oxford dictionary. Thus, we should prefer PRO’s third definition: “should be resolved first”
- The resolution does NOT imply that we must resolve only one or the other. It only implies that one should be resolved BEFORE the other. It follows, then, that voters should prefer the side which proves that their issue is more potentially impactful currently than the other. Potential global warming impacts 100 years into the future, for example, are far from our biggest priority. Much deliberation, debate, and action can be done from now until then.
“Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.
As Princeton cites:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
Indeed, “According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.”
This means in one DAY, abortion kills about as many people as climate change kills in one YEAR according to PRO’s own source.
- Air, soil & water pollution with chemicals or biological agents
- Ultraviolet and ionizing radiation
- Built environment
- Noise, electromagnetic fields
- Occupational risks
- Agricultural methods, irrigation schemes
- Anthropogenic climate changes, ecosystem degradation
- Individual behaviors related to the environment, such as hand-washing, food contamination with unsafe water or dirty hands”
“con's argument is absurd, and relies on DNA being equal to human. He has not successfully managed to tackle this problem.”
“There is much separating mere DNA from having human rights, including but not limited to consciousness, ability to respond to stimuli, so on and so forth. The idea that abortion kills way more than Global warming is absolutely insane and makes no sense.”
“1) NO new lifeAs billinggazette notes, "No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg.”
“The multicellular pre-implantation embryo cannot be equated with a human being. It is a collection of stem cells”
“The obvious fact that without mother, the cells would not survive highlight con's stand against abortion and arguing that it should be banned, that it is a more pressing issue than global warming.”
2. You have committed manslaughter
4. You have committed criminal negligence.
Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than human?
we run into the same logical blunders: what about people in a vegetative state
CON fails to see how a baby in the womb relying on their mother, as someone might rely on life support, makes them less than human.
- PRO does not respond to the majority of CON’s arguments regarding the humanity of the fetus.
“Take a look at this table. That's right. No matter how you add up the numbers they can't beat Global Warming's 150,000 amount.”
“This data does not include 8 states and the District of Columbia… Reports are only on abortions performed on state residents...”
“Con speaks of the potential contribution of the people, but does not consider the fact that "average" is useless; the bottom 10% of the world lives under poverty and the bottom 25% of the world lives without proper job or education to fulfill the massive $45,000 claim of each "individual life".
“Punishing inaction is absurd. It would be like saying that "people not being born is an issue, due to potentially lost money"... So based on con, we should force people to have sex so that as many people would be born as possible
“Con Asks:
Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than human?
Actually, yes. If the life support was sentient, had say over his life, and had its own rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).”
“Con mentions:
... what about people in a vegetative state?"
If the mother had to constantly carry that person around physically (who, had no response, no memories, no feelings)...”
Additionally, PRO’s argument that the fetus is “an unfeeling clump of cells” has been addressed into oblivion already.
RECALL: “The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.”
“By this analogy, con would be fine to disable the life support to save the person. Which is completely nonsense. You get rid of the exact support that helped them survive. This is contradictory.”
“"UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE"?
Negated. The case is 3 in most cases. In case of 1, most women would only do so with their lives in danger.”
The idea behind the argument is that there is uncertainty to the issue of abortion. No one can say with absolute certainty that abortion does not kill a human person. At best, someone can be strongly convinced that it does not, but they have no capacity to prove so.
That throws out cases 1 & 3 and leaves options 2 & 4, both of which are negative.
“Even if Con was correct, half the countries in the world already support his stance,”
“His stance also stifles women's' rights to their own body and offers troubling implications towards our world of liberty and autonomy.”
Vote CON.
First, even though conduct is a tie, I feel like they're both really low numbers. The really cruel descriptions of abortion, including terms like "vacuum" described by Con and then Pro's labeling of some people as inherently less valuable than others, not in the best taste. I feel conduct is a litmus of both treatment of each other, but also ensuring not offensive statements.
Second, the debate comes down to the issue of Pro dropping all of their arguments. By the end of the debate, there is no reason to prefer global warming, while all the impacts of Con have a risk through the unpredictability issue. Pretty much, abortion might be unethical now, but global warming is in a 100 years, and all of the issues were both refuted as worse under abortion and the numbers for global warming dropped.
Pro - Tips to get better, talk about how the numbers you bring up will get worse. It eventually leads to extinction, abortion doesn't. This then gives you a higher magnitude over Con. Also, justify abortion as a human right issue earlier in the round. The comment in the last speech is new and can't be evaluated.
Con - Don't paint yourself in the bubble of only illegalization. You could do also go for legalization in the countries it's illegal and all the reasons it's a human right. Con's job is to only prove the resolution wrong, so if you can prove that there's two reasons for abortion to change, then it's a double-bind on Pro. Make sure to only keep one till the end of the debate tho.
This became the obvious decision after Pro's second round because as soon as the debate became more about whether abortion is bad, Pro's main offense in this debate vanished into the periphery. It comes back somewhat in the final round, but by then, Pro has tied his own hands by allowing Con to dictate the definitions in a way that basically forces him to argue based on current harms rather than future harms. There was an opportunity to argue this back, but Pro didn't take it, so we're stuck with current degrees of impact.
What makes this worse is that I don't get any significant weighing analysis from either side between points with different impacts, which is a bigger problem for Pro. How do the economic impacts both sides discuss weigh against loss of life? Honestly, I have no clue, and since both sides largely shift focus to loss of life as an impact and it's generally hard to weigh lives against dollars and cents, I'm going with loss of life as the automatically greater impact. Pro also has this point about environmental impact, but I'm unclear throughout how much I should weigh the loss of other lives against human lives, and impacts of unrest and diseases are either too vague or downplayed too much to matter in the scope of the remainder of the debate.
Which, of course, just leaves me with the lives lost. Pro gives me a very clear number for his side. Con's is a little less clear, but what is clear enough is that it's bigger than 150,000. Late term abortions alone worldwide would get close to that number if not exceed it, and there's just a lot of uncertainty regarding the value of lives lost due to abortions. Con loses a lot of ground by missing out on arguing the Uncertainty Principle, which would have put the weight on his side for this, but I can still afford him some weight due to losses incurred via abortion. How much it weighs against losses of those we would consider persons is unclear, but it's a large enough number that it would feature in some fashion. Overall, there's just too much actual and potential weight on Con's side, and he ends up clinching this debate.
Yep, sounds about right.
Definitely. If I were PRO, I would have argued that:
a. Humanity needs to act now to stop climate change from irreversibly harming our planet.
b. If humans do not stop climate change, it will exacerbate our resource supply exponentially leading to mass death and conflict.
c. Banning abortion worldwide will no-doubt be a lengthy and hard-fought goal, meaning the world will miss out on addressing climate change. The direct impact is a resource crisis.
d. The eventual banning of abortion results in a population surplus, thus exacerbating the situation even more.
Oh there’s tons to cover here and both sides could build a solid case, but going down the rabbit hole of “what makes a human” is just asking for trouble outside of an out and out abortion debate (and, honestly, even then I have issues with it). Focus needs to be on the major comparisons, not on establishing uncertainty.
All good stuff. I can think of some refutations to the stuff about what a CON world looks like, but it would have definitely given me a lot more trouble.
You absolutely could have, though I think you need to keep the focus on global warming and really emphasize how actions we take now are yielding consequences that can’t be reversed. Really getting into just how great of a problem global warming represents and hyping that harm, as MisterChris did with abortion, would have been a good start. Even better would have been to include a large argument about life on this planet and how anthropocentric views have led humans to view all other life as dispensable. Hype the importance of other life, and use the all life has meaning viewpoint of the pro-life movement to help build it.
As for addressing abortion, you needed to throw him off his rhythm. This isn’t about changing a policy regarding abortion, just about whether abortion is a greater issue. What does a world where abortions don’t happen look like? Deaths will still happen in droves, but how? Food security and poverty would actually come into play here. Addressing loss of life as an issue, regardless of when or how it happens, would have been a good direction. If we’re just shunting these people into a system where they suffer and die, are we really doing anyone more favors? Also, overpopulation and global warming have some nice connections you could’ve gone for.
Also, I promise the Uncertainty Principle is a good argument, I just happen to be really bad at copy-pasting apparently lmao
You could have won, I think. If I were in your position, I would start going through the worst possible estimates of death tolls, crop eradication, droughts, natural disasters, etc. Maybe factor in the possibilities of war over resources too. I think it also would've been beneficial for you to establish that in the status quo, what we are doing to curb global warming is not even close to enough. Additionally, there were some stuff I argued you could've turned against me that you didn't.
Anyway, thanks a lot for voting!
"Con loses a lot of ground by missing out on arguing the Uncertainty Principle, which would have put the weight on his side for this"
That was such a facepalm moment for me! Next time I use it it won't be a flop I promise xD
do you think I had a chance to win this debate? Maybe G.W Isn't the most pressing issue? Would food security, poverty stand a chance in your opinion?
Gish galloping means to present a lot of individually weak arguments. As you can see, I've only made 3 main arguments. I would want the extra space to elaborate on my points more.
no. You could gish gallop if I gave you 30,000.
Can't blame you for thinking so. Choosing between two worldwide disasters based on their severity is an inherently egregious and unsettling topic
I've been thinking on how best to write this comment for longer than I'd like to admit.
Chris - respectively - it's more so witness and be uncomfortable. Your argument - as I've found often in reading your debates - is nothing short of a work of art.
But the position that you present here is... uniquely unpleasant.
I will say, if you want a repeat on a topic like this, you need a higher character limit
Hopefully you see now where I am coming from at least?
Witness and be amazed JRob!
I'm at a loss for words that anyone can genuinely hold the position of Con, and I certainly hope that Pro does the topic justice...
Since it's short, I'll bite.
Good topic.
I would say abortion, since it has proven harms from either perspective on it; whereas the impacts of global warming (not to say climate change itself) depends much of speculation.
what do you think? Which issue is more pressing to prevent/vouch for?