Instigator / Pro
7
1588
rating
23
debates
67.39%
won
Topic
#2648

Abortion should be illegal in nearly all cases.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Patmos
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

No information

Might as well say all cases. One side trying to compromise while the other isn't. Forget about that.

Opps sorry I am a beginner thanks for advice haha

-->
@A_Jason_I_Einstein_M

Just letting you know in advance, votes are meant to be done based on the debate alone, without the input/influence of anyone else (whether it be the debaters post-debate or other voters)

The reason this principle exists is so that votes are not unduly influenced by outside factors. In other words, asking for PRO to give input on your vote post-debate could unduly influence your decision. If you want feedback on your vote, I'd be happy to give it, just make sure to ask for it once your vote is complete.

-->
@Patmos

Haha haven't finish but just take a look anything you don't agree

Report on Abortion should be illegal in nearly all cases

Before persualling pro and con arguments , this statement seems easier for pro than con. However , I think both contestants have strong abilities so let’s go .

Content :
1. Round 1:Patoms
2.

1.1 Patoms
Basic assumption and definition as an introduction
Directly declare his following argument will be based on scientific and philosophical.
Point out the definition of life so that ,unless opponent objects the definition, the impression of abortion will directly be associated with killing babies .
Pro uses syllogism to proof zygote is actually a living human being. You based on a sturdy theory and precisely point out zygote is a living cell based on the posit foundations you made. This presumption will be a hefty burden to your opponent if he doesn't oppose this premise.

Rebuttal : My body my choice
pro points out the misconception of the general public : a fetus is a part of a woman’s body .
Rebuttal point : This argument displays basic scientific illiteracy.
Pro provides another assumption which part of your body is defined as DNA part and non DNA part. Though this assumption is beneficial to pro but too many definitions may cause others to notice the definition is biased. ( I haven’t read the sources if the definition are from authoritative source I would apologise for it )
Pro continues his proof established through logical thinking which consequently achieve the conclusion : distinct from both the mother and the father this argument can be shown to be scientifically invalid.

The philosophical prong

Start by rebuttal

Pro begins by saying the general public think“Well , the fetus may be a human being , but they’re not a human person. “
Pro provides questions to raise the reader’s curiosity about how you will rebuttal these points. Including why then has personhood been conferred
Using Granny as a metaphor to prove heartbeat never could be an indicator of life.
Successfully inferences readers to think the general public assumptions are inconsistent.
Well elaboration and deduction , but better rebuttal the questions you set. Else the con could use those questions as a foundation of attacking. Con could actually point out the line between philosophical and scientific are ambiguous which all assumptions should be redefined. This would be catastrophic for pro.

Give me a a few days I can vote as well

I can work on a vote for this after I’ve read through it.

-->
@CalebEr

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: CalebEr // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
**************************************************

CalebEr
Added: 21 hours ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
PRO consistently presented cogent, scientifically-grounded arguments. I found him to be much more persuasive than his opponent, who all but ignored the points PRO was making for half of the debate.

-->
@seldiora

Cloning really only works as a response to the “what makes a human a person is the uniqueness of their DNA” point, which I’ve always found to be a kind of trashy argument, anyway. If I insert a separate gene into a human stem cell, it doesn’t suddenly become a person.

The black market argument is always pretty decent, though in practice there’s likely to be relatively good doctors performing abortions in secret. Doesn’t mean there’s not a point to be made here - I know I’d rather have these done at registered clinics or hospitals where patients can be treated if something goes wrong - but it’s not as powerful as many make it out to be.

The biggest problem is that it effectively politicizes the medical profession. Suddenly, doctors are being put in a position where they put their legal status in jeopardy simply because they see a woman who may not precisely fit the framework of needing an abortion for medical purposes? I’d point to efforts to prevent doctors from pursuing euthanasia for their patients, but this is far more damning. Patients are actively asking for treatment, and the government tells these doctors they cannot provide it. If someone is medically impacted and refused an abortion, which is bound to happen, doctors will be the ones to eat those lawsuits. They’re not the ones making the decision to get an abortion, yet they take all the blame when the legal system forces them to abstain when they would otherwise be able to objectively analyze a patients status. Basically, I would argue that Pro is putting doctors in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation where the legal system will hit them either way.

-->
@whiteflame

Should I have mentioned human cloning? I couldn't find a good way to penetrate the scientific basis on normal grounds even with uncertainty added to try to absolutely reduce the babies' rights. I lost motivation because I felt he didn't give a good reason why you should be punished for taking the 1% chance (especially since the doctor is the one actually being punished instead of MisterChris's argument about charging woman with manslaughter).

Or maybe how Patmos's plan encourages quack doctors who are willing to risk getting jailed performing unsafe abortions rather than real doctors.

-->
@Patmos

I hope you don’t mind me accepting. I found your argument far more flawed than MisterChris

-->
@seldiora

Abortion should be illegal in all cases except those rare instances wherein a mother's life is placed at significant and abnormal risk.

-->
@Patmos

define illegal in mostly all cases