Instigator / Pro
1
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#2470

It is not good to make food out of aborted babies

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
3

After 3 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-bizarro-world-boycotted-over-embryonic-cells-linked-to-lo-cal-soda/

cbs admits they make soda from aborted baby

Burden of proof.
it is not good to make food out of aborted babies

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

With BoP on pro, con's simple case that it is better to not waste wins.

...

Pro opens with the profound claim that vaccines were intentionally designed to cause cancer. ... Also pepsi is apparently made from aborted babies, since human flesh is so addictive.

Con cuts past it with the simple point that pro's case does not address the sole act of the food, and further that there is a net benefit to using the resource.

Pro straw mans con's case with an off topic rape comparison, and offers a delicious idea of spider-nachos!

Holy hell, con actually catches the spider bit and uses a source to show how good they taste!

And pro engages in a strawman gish gallop...

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Lack of evidences to support each claim.
Muddled arguments on display; nothing strong from either.
Multiple arguments dropped while could've provided credibility in form of rebuttals.
And of course,
Not a sound debate to enjoy.

So, I will safely vote it to be a tie.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con bites the figurative bullet and argues that it is good to make food out of aborted babies. He argues that, since they are already dead, it is pointless to let them go to waste. He claims that they can be made into nutritious food.

Pro argues that eating aborted babies is cannibalism and is morally wrong. Since the BoP is on him to show that it is morally wrong, this isn't convincing. He does argue that there have been negative affects from cannibalism, indicating that it is morally wrong. He says we should be respectful and bury the baby, not eat it. He compares Con's argument that they are already dead, so it's okay to eat them, to raping someone while they are asleep. He also claims that it isn't good because it isn't safe.

This debate does have the problem that neither side really clarify what "good" means in this context. Neither specify moral good, so Pro's argument about eating babies being unsafe does seem applicable. Furthermore, Con dropped it, so it does stand. A more significant problem here is that neither side provides any moral framework for determining whether it's right or wrong. Con seems to be proposing that the contribution to society from eating supposedly nutritious babies is some sort of good. That's not great, but it's more than what Pro provides. Pro's moral arguments are vague. He says that we should be respectful and that it's morally wrong to eat humans. However, he just takes the moral wrongness of eating babies as a given. While that would be fine in real life, and most people would agree, this is a debate, and such contentions require supporting evidence. The only thing that Pro provides as supporting evidence is that we have souls, so it's wrong. I don't see how that logic follows. What difference does having a soul make in this case? Pro doesn't explain.

To try to straighten out this mess, I'll try to summarize. Con argues that it is good to make food out of aborted babies because it contributes nutritious food to society. Pro never has a good counter to this. On the other hand, Pro argues that it's unsafe, and Con drops this. The resolution here is a general statement that it is wrong to make food out of aborted babies. Con's argument that it is a contribution to society does apply generally. Pro's argument that it is unsafe is not as generalizable. While it may be unsafe in the situations Con mentions, he doesn't show that it's always unsafe, although he does provide arguments that it is unsafe in several different contexts. I'll give Con the edge here because his argument can apply to all cases, whereas Pro's argument only applies to many cases.

Overall, this debate was a mess, and honestly rather gross. It would have been nice to see some definitions and some framework from both sides to show how to weigh the arguments. Neither side engaged much with the meat of the other's arguments. Pro's argument was rather unclear and resembled a gish gallop at times, whereas Con dropped Pro's whole argument. As mentioned above, Con's argument is a little better, so I'll give him the points.