Instigator / Pro
3
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#311

Elective abortion is prima facie immoral

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

--Topic--
Resolved: Elective abortion is prime facie immoral.

--Definitions--
Elective Abortion: An abortion done for non-medical reasons

--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is one of those debates that irks me because the instigator tacked a bunch of unnecessary and unenforceable rules onto the debate description. I've asked the moderators for clarification before, and it has been repeatedly confirmed that these rules are NOT enforceable. But in this case, the instigator who inserted these rules also violated his own rules by forfeiting round 3, so I think that merits a conduct point to Con on this one, easily.

On arguments, the important thing to note is that Pro is attempting to establish that abortion is "prima facie" immoral. Not just immoral, but specifically "prima facie" immoral. That was a big tactical error here.

Pro opens with a strong argument, pointing out that humans are a member of the community from the moment of conception and citing several authoritative sources to verify this claim. That was a great start, but Pro then ends his opening arguments on a weak note by presenting several other premises that he merely says are "obviously true" with no source to support them, and further states that he won't even bother to defend them unless Con challenges them. His conclusion is that since humans are members of the community from the moment of conception, abortion is "prima facie" immoral.

Con's rebuttal probably wasn't what Pro was expecting, since instead of trying to fight the "immoral" part of the resolution, he instead begins by targeting the "prima facie" part. Con points out that the "prima facie" is a "conundrum" in this case, reminding the audience that the definition of prima facie is "at first sight (= based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard)." Con then argues that abortion will not be "prima facie immoral" for everyone, because many people take a very different approach to examining the morality of abortion, such as by considering the effect that abortion has on the mother as being more significant than the effect that abortion has on the child. Con doesn't actually need to prove that this view point is correct, he just needs to show that for such people, abortion isn't automatically "prima facie" ("at first sight") immoral. This poked a HUGE hole into Pro's claim, since if there is any reason that abortion falls short of being "prima facie" immoral, then his whole resolution effectively comes up short.

In round 2, Pro said that Con's argument was "a bit of a kritkit," which I disagree is the case. Otherwise, Pro's only rebuttal of Con's argument was to merely provide a few additional sources to support his original arguments from the first round. His sources from the first round were already strong, so this really added nothing new (as Con pointed out in the following rounds).

Con made several additional arguments on behalf of Abortion, but I didn't really consider these for several reasons. Firstly, these arguments weren't really necessary. Con already toppled Pro's argument when he targeted the "prima facie" element of the claim, so defending abortion as moral wasn't necessary to defeat Pro's argument. Secondly, most of these arguments seemed to be generic rebuttals of generic arguments which are often made in abortion debates, but which weren't actually made by Pro during this debate, so they seemed a bit off-topic. Lastly, because Pro forfeits most of the debate after this point, he never offers any response to any of these arguments, so they effectively just become dropped points anyway.

The key here was that Pro specifically claimed that abortion is "prima facie immoral." If he has merely said "immoral" without the "prima facie" prefix, he would have had a very strong argument, and could potentially have won this debate if he hadn't forfeited so many rounds. Unfortunately, he did include that unnecessary "prima facie" prefix and Con successfully attacked it as invalid, while Pro flubbed the remainder of the debate beyond that point. Thus, Pro's argument comes up short and I have to award argument points to Con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's forfeit in round 3 is a violation of Rule 1 (see Description) and thus merits a loss according to Rule 10 (ditto).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Out of the final two rounds, Pro forfeited one round, and forfeited another round in spirit. This is a clear violation of rule 1 in this debate, and due to the final rule, this behaviour merits a loss.