Instigator / Pro
34
1541
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#3575

Abortion debate

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
4
Better legibility
5
3
Better conduct
4
3

After 5 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...

Pat_Johnson
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
10
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

This debate is about abortion.

Meriam Webster's definition of abortion:
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as
a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation
— compare MISCARRIAGE
b: induced expulsion of a human fetus
c: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy [1]

As of this debate, only human abortion is to be debated. As a result, the (c) definition is irrelevant.
__________________

For Burden of Proof:

To be decided with-in the debate.
______________

10,000 (ten thousand) characters are allowed in each round. Loopholes to violate the character limit, like writing your case in a word (or alike) file and posting its screenshot (or image file or something like that) are not allowed. Such attempts will result in automatic disqualification - voters should penalize the violaters (if any occurs).
______________________________

Good luck

i would hav evoted for CON if they had given me something to judge. very unfortunate.

abortion is completely wrong

-->
@Rohit7664

"When con says that abortion is killing fetus, its wrong. Abortion is not killing fetus because a fetus does not have life of its own till 24 weeks and abortion is not possible after 24 weeks. So abortion before 24 weeks is just removing a non living thing from body. So there is noting morally wrong in abortion."

A fetus does have life, cellular life at its core.
The basic biological criterion for cellular life is met at conception, therefore the pregnancy is surely a "living" organism.
As such, a pregnancy terminates a living organism.
Abortions are done after 22-24 weeks, in rare circumstances, which demonstrates why less than 1.2% of all abortions take place after that timeframe.
90-94% of all abortions are before 14 weeks, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. No "baby" involved.

Abortion is morally acceptable prior to fetal viability. Once viable, I take issue with abortion. Up to 20 weeks is long enough to decide whether or not you're ready psychologically, physiologically, and financially capable of birthing and raising a child for 18 years.

-->
@Novice_II

If you want, we can still have debate on this one.

You can choose either way: 1) 1 debate, with each of us arguing for different levels of burden of proof. 2) Two debates, 1 will be titled "Abortion should be legal" and in second debate the title will be "Abortion should be illegal". in one of them I will be PRO and in one you will be PRO. In each debate, only PRO will have burden of proof.

oh someone accepted looks like

-->
@Novice_II

Replying to your comment at #9.

One debate will be to argue "Abortion should be legal" - it is "proponent wivew". Ib that debate, I would be pro and advocate that it is to be legal.

In the opponent view, you would be the pro and have the burden of proof, advocating abortion should be illegal

-->
@Bones
@Novice_II

Or if you want, I am updating this debate's rules in accordance with your request and reducing it to 3 rounds. I (pro) will start the debate outright and con will end it at the 3rd round

-->
@Pat_Johnson

I don't really see how that makes any sense with respect to out current aspirations. What is the necessity of having two debates ongoing? Also why would pro have the burden of proof in both debates when it should be shared or contested like any policy debate?

-->
@Bones
@Novice_II

What about this proposal of mine:

We (me and the contender of this debate) will have 2 (two) debates:

In both debates, only the PRO side will have the burden of proof and in the description of both debates, the other debate will be referenced as "Proponent view" and "Opponent view". With both debates being titled "Abortion" debate.

Both debates will take place concurrently and both debates will feature the link of the other debate.

-->
@Pat_Johnson

Can you actually change the rules so it alters the condition of burden of proof to be shared or disputed?

Three rounds (so four if we waive the first and last) is enough. We can debate the BoP for it is a matter of contention.

-->
@Bones
@Novice_II

As I said in my previous comment, BoP is to be not shared in this debate but if you want, I may compromise for you and make it shared.
But on that case, I will start the debate.

3 rounds are enough?

-->
@Bones
@Novice_II

But why burden of proof should be "shared"?
If I am asserting "drinking coffee should be prohibited" for example, I would have burden of proof - why would you need to demonstrate that drinking coffee should be allowed?

Also, make it four rounds - I promise that three rounds of contest is more than enough.

Your burden of proof analysis is itself which you seem to require the contender to conceded. You ought instead, like Novice suggested, put the burden up for contention.

-->
@Pat_Johnson

Make the burden of proof shared and I will oblige you.