Instigator / Pro
13
1501
rating
11
debates
27.27%
won
Topic
#3644
abortion is immoral
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
24
Better sources
8
16
Better legibility
4
8
Better conduct
1
8
After 8 votes and with 43 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
56
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Proposition: Abortion is immoral
Argument 1 - Abortion is killing and unjustified.
- What does it mean to kill?
- What does it mean to be justified?
- to give or to be a good reason for
- Thus, unjustified killing can be defined as the instant in which one causes the death or the deprives life, in a way that does not give a good reason for.
- We can agree axiomatically that unjustified killing is not justified and hence immoral.
- Does abortion satisfy this criteria?
- Does it involve the act of depriving life?
- Yes.
- “Human life begins at fertilisation, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialised, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically OrientedEmbryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
- “Fertilisation is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphates and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
- “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology andTeratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8
- Is it justified?
- No.
- We can determine this by first understanding what the justifications people have for abortions are.
- The most justifications for abortion which people propose are as follows.
- Are these reasons which are used to justify depriving life justified?
- Are they justifications for killing infants?
- No
- Thus they are not justified for depriving life.
- Thus, abortion is not justified i.e, it is not moral.
Argument 2 - The unborn ought to have rights.
P1: Living humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P2: If humans come into being at the moment of conception, they ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P3: Humans come into being at the moment of conception
C: Humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws at the moment of conception
p1 is self explanatory and axiomatic. We go around society assuming that we all have rights which are upheld by judicial laws.
p2 follows from p1.
p3 is true from the prior science I provided.
c1 conclusion follows.
Con
#2
Thx, Vici
PROPOSITION: ABORTION is IMMORAL
DEFINITIONS:
OBJECTION: Since PRO failed to define the terms of this debate, CON is forced to define the terms of this debate.
Mirriam-Webster defines ABORTION as
"1: 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"
Wikipedia defines
an ABORTION as " the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion";
Mirriam-Webster defines
IMMORAL as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"
Wikipedia defines
IMMORALITY as "the violation of moral laws, norms or standards. It refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong."
BURDEN of PROOF:
Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. PRO must show that all ABORTIONS, including miscarriages and foetuses expelled due to infection conflict with generally held beliefs. PRO must show evidence that when pregnant animals, including humans have miscarriages, they know or believe they have done something wrong.
Argument 1 - Abortion is killing and unjustified.
What does it mean to kill?
- Not all abortion involves killing. In fact, the overwhelming majority of abortions are entirely unintentional.
- spontaneous abortions "occur in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies."
- By comparison, in the US, the CDC estimated that just over 1% of US human pregnancies were intentionally induced.
- That is PRO is inaccurately painting all ABORTIONS using a characteristic to be discovered in only 2.4-3.3% of all ABORTIONS
- PRO is making generalized judgements based on a distinctly minority experience.
What does it mean to be justified?
- PRO's standard here is IMMORAL and PRO must show that the majority or traditionally held principle is violated by miscarriages and other ABORTIONS.
- In fact, the opposite is true. In modern thinking, spontaneous abortions are generally thought of as natural, albeit sometimes regrettable, processes.
- Most participants (74%) correctly believed that pregnancy loss was most commonly the result of a genetic or medical problem. Highly educated respondents, defined as those who graduated from college and/or received higher graduate education, were more likely to believe that the most common cause of miscarriage is genetic than those who were less educated (defined as those who have not completed college) (37.6% vs. 24.9%; p < 0.001). Level of education was significantly inversely associated with increased odds for reporting that miscarriages are not due to a genetic or medical problem (p < 0.001).
- Historically, Society's reactions to spontaneous abortions have changed over time.
- "In the early 20th century, the focus was on the mother's physical health and the difficulties and disabilities that miscarriage could produce. Other reactions, such as the expense of medical treatments and relief at ending an unwanted pregnancy, were also heard. In the 1940s and 1950s, people were more likely to express relief, not because the miscarriage ended an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy, but because people believed that miscarriages were primarily caused by birth defects, and miscarrying meant that the family would not raise a child with disabilities. The dominant attitude in the mid-century was that a miscarriage, although temporarily distressing, was a blessing in disguise for the family, and that another pregnancy and a healthier baby would soon follow, especially if women trusted physicians and reduced their anxieties"
- Even with the greater intention involved with induced abortions, the majority still does not seem to think of abortion as particularly in conflict with general practices.
- A Pew Research Poll from this summer, for example found that the majority of Americans, 61%, believed that induced abortions should be legal in most or all cases.
- Even traditionally, induced abortions (for the first 20 weeks) were legal and commonplace in from the Puritans until the mid-19th Century.
- "Social attitudes towards abortion shifted in the context of a backlash against the women's rights movement. Abortion had previously been widely practiced and legal under common law in early pregnancy (until quickening), and it was not until the 19th century that the English-speaking world passed laws against abortion at all stages of pregnancy."
- Benjamin Franklin, for example, published at-home remedies for terminating an unwanted pregnancy without seeming to provoke much of any kind of moral disapproval from his follow Colonists.
Argument 2 - The unborn ought to have rights.
- Civil rights and enfranchisement are by definition, statuses granted after birth is confirmed.
- In the US,
- "There are two primary sources of citizenship: birthright citizenship, in which a person is presumed to be a citizen if he or she was born within the territorial limits of the United States, or—providing certain other requirements are met—born abroad to a United States citizen parent, and naturalization, a process in which an eligible legal immigrant applies for citizenship and is accepted. These two pathways to citizenship are specified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
- Even human rights are quite questionable since humans are by definition, characterized "by bipedalism and large, complex brains." Brain activity in a human foetuses doesn't even start until about 6 weeks in.
- The extension of human rights to fetuses' would prove legally untenable and almost universally harmful to the mother's rights. For example, humans have the right not to be held silent in the dark without air for weeks at a time but no mother would be able to complete her pregnancy without depriving the foetus of those basic human rights.
CONCLUSION
- PRO failed to define terms and so opened up his argument to counterargument using commonplace defintions of the words abortion and immoral that do not match his arguments at all.
- In fact, PRO never talked about morality and only addressed justification
- PRO never addressed the rights of parents and particularly mothers.
- PRO's argument for rights for the unborn is inconsitant with current understandings of civil or human rights
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 2
Con
#4
Thx, Vici!
PROPOSITION: ABORTION is IMMORAL
DEFINITIONS:
VOTERS will note that PRO made no objections to any of CON's definition of ABORTION or IMMORAL.
CON's definitions stand.
BURDEN of PROOF:
VOTERS will note that PRO did not refute that the entire burden of the debate was his to prove.
Argument 1 - Abortion is killing and unjustified.
What does it mean to kill?
- PRO dropped CON's argument that most abortions involve no killing whatsoever
What does it mean to be justified?
- PRO argued that all unjustified killings are IMMORAL because they aren't justified.
- CON showed that ABORTIONS, spontaneous or otherwise, are not generally considered killings and therefore IMMORAL from the perspective of general society or traditionally culture.
- PRO dropped CON's argument
Argument 2 - The unborn ought to have rights.
- CON argued that civil rights and enfranchisement are by definition, statuses granted after birth is confirmed.
- PRO dropped this argument.
- Even human rights are quite questionable since humans are by definition, characterized "by bipedalism and large, complex brains."
CONCLUSION
- PRO offered a moral argument but failed to the impacts of pregnancy to society, families, parents, and particularly mothers. How can any assessment be considered MORAL without any consideration for the majority of stakeholders?
- PRO's plan for fetal rights is entirely unworkable and inconsistent with modern civil and humans rights provisions.
- PRO dropped all of CON's arguments and forfeited half of the argument.
- In fact, PRO never engaged CON's argument at all.
- PRO failed to show that all ABORTIONS, including miscarriages and fetuses' expelled due to infection conflict with generally held (American, at least) beliefs.
- PRO failed to show evidence that when pregnant animals, including humans have miscarriages, they know or believe they have done something wrong.
CON asks VOTERS to award ARGUMENTS to CON for providing DEFINITIONS and adhering more closely to the thesis as defined than PRO.
CON asks VOTERS to award CONDUCT to CON, for PRO's forfeit.
- Thanks in advance to all VOTERS for their kind consideration and thanks to Vici for providing this exercise in speed argument under pressure.
- Please VOTE 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:
forfeiture
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 forfeited everything after R1, making him vulnerable to Con's attacks because he failed to defend it. That is all about it.
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 missed half the debate.
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:
Forfeited R2
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:
Forfeiture.
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:
Frankly, without a second round’s worth of arguments, there was no way Pro could win this since he allowed Con to dictate a lot of the terms and therefore the scope of the debate. If spontaneous abortions qualify, as Con argues that they do, then they constitute the vast majority of abortions and do not fit Pro’s metrics for determining that they are immoral, though Con also argues that it is Pro’s burden to demonstrate that ALL abortions are immoral, so even fringe cases would have to be unjustified for Pro to show that the resolution is true. I don’t think that framing of the debate is particularly fair or accurate based on the resolution, but it is up to Pro to make that point. He didn’t, so it stands and automatically yields a Con vote.
Conduct to Con as well for the forfeit.
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:
Forfeiture.
thank you, Just! and welcome to the site!
Hi! Im new here, in fact I registered about an hour ago and I came across your profile, I reviewed some of your debates and you're amazing!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia to defend his case. Also Pro had good arguments based on the life of the child. Although Pro forfeited once.
>Reason for Mod Action:
No argument analysis, and highly questionable source analysis (I don't see where pro used the reliability to challenge any of cons sources).
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia. This platform can be easily hacked and people can change information presented.
>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 cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
I think Vici won this debate, however, my vote shall not change the unjust outcome, as the situation presents itself.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
I copied all the points of your argument. Maybe actually read what you write. Its not anyones fault but yours that your argument fails.
Thanks for voting!
"Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. "
I guess that makes you the retard since you composed the argument and your argument bears no resemblance to my argument in any way.
So lets put your argument to actual logic test:
Murder is okay if:
1) if it solves or helps solve overpopulation
2) if the individual is committing it voluntary(!)
3) if its self selective
4) if it terminates unwanted individuals(!)
5) when decision is made by the most relevant stakeholder
6) when it causes least destruction
Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. Your argument allows not just abortions, but also killing of any children and eldery and disabled people. It also allows for a person to voluntairly by self selection kill any eldery or child or disabled person they find unwanted, as that solves the overpopulation and hence saves the society and the individuals who are all the most relevant stakeholders while causing least destruction by destroying the most useless members of the society. So basically, your nazi logic has justified eldery murder, death penalty, child murder, murdering of the disabled ones, murder of anyone who is ill and needs care, forced sterilizations...ect. I could also use it to justify forced abortions within families, since no abortions are really voluntary as no fetus consents to be aborted. But in case of forced abortions, there would likely be more people(more volunteers) agreeing to force someone to an abortion. I am pretty sure that forced abortions along with allowing volunteers to kill people are a much quicker way of solving overpopulation and will make lives easier for the rest of us. I prefer the idea that everyone kills within his own family. So basically, if a father wanted a son but he got a daughter, he should be allowed to kill her. It will help with overpopulation, so why not?
"You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state."
Its evident to me that America needs to modernise a bit, take on a social democracy type economic policy (seen in Europe with higher taxes). It seems inevitable.
So long as overpopulation threatens the preservation of the human race (and other species), we ought not to indulge any prohibition against voluntary self-selective termination of unwanted individuals, which seems far preferable to any involuntary selection and gives the decision-making authority to the most relevant stakeholder. Give women complete control over baby-making decisions and I believe women will naturally, instinctively find the least destructive path to solving overpopulation.
Abortion is very moral.
Population control.
Keeping undesirables out of the population.
Reducing crime.
Aiding girls and women to continue their life goals without the struggle and burden of 18 years of legal attachment to a child they never wanted. So they can live their lives to the fullest.
Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.
That's because their communism is phony. To be a communist you have to believe that a viable economic model can be derived from stateless, voluntary organization of small communities around their own means of production. That takes powerful optimism in human nature.
You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state.
sorry, i completely misread what you said.
I disagree. We can, of course, debate the topic one day, if you want. You can have immoral dispositions and I'd hold true to that. To deny it, you would have to go into communist absolute skeptic mode.
there's a pretty vast difference between humans are not biologically compelled to rape or murder and "humans don't have immoral desires" There's really no reason to infer the later from the former.
> Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
Some species of monkeys have been known to spontaneously abort when the troop is taken over by different male leaders. Angel sharks often abort when they are captured.
Isn't an All Perfect,All Knowing God creating cancer , immoral?
Well stated.
"If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia."
Maybe you should change the school that educates you. Capitalism killed more people and animals than all other systems combined, destroyed the nature, created unsustainable agriculture, created unhealthy food, established the dictatorship of the rich, created mass exploitation, separated the worker from the means of production and the fruit of his labour, led the world to the point of near total destruction, consistently produced crisis throughout its entire history, increased the suicide and homicide rates to the point which was never seen before...ect.
And no, you cant fix capitalism. The rich control the media and the government. If you think raising the taxes will solve the problem, it wont. Never did, never will. Capitalist media actively promotes hate every day. You cant have peace in a system that has the incentive to promote hate.
Leftists are usually loser nihilists/absurdist's who believe there's no meaning to existence and that everything is atheism.
I'm not a communist. But I'm on the left, and from reading your debates it seems like you are too. Bernie is based ASF, best American politician. I completely disagree that leftists have a good view of human nature. Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.
I've never met a sincere Communist in my life. If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia. If you claiming to be a fan of Communism you almost certainly have a distorted view of Communism. As Marx said, "Well, if that's what Marxism means, then I am no Marxist!"
It's like the whole Bernie thing. All these dudes talk about Bernie and then you run through Bernie's number one agenda item, his tax plan, and you find 3% support among Bernie voters, less than 1% support in the Democratic. In other words, it is all just talk and there no serious political juice behind it.
I do believe that Republicans are more skeptical about human nature (sin if you like) and Democrats more optimistic.
I'm very much on the left. Since you're so much into politics. Do you want to accept my current right vs left debate? I think most republicans would say most humans have a sinful nature. I think most leftists would too, I don't think its a political thing. Most leftists would argue its actually a benefit to the self to be in a communist society. They're well aware most bourgeoise will reject it.
"I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it."
I think that's the main difference in outlook between Republicans and Democrats.
To argue humans don't have immoral desires (like a hamster or spider) is akin to arguing we cannot do moral wrong. If we had no immoral desires, it should be impossible to do evil.
Maybe it's not directly in our genetics to eat our children. Yet other things we definitely wouldn't consider virtuous, such as greed, envy, and hate. Certainly they are, and are all things that lead to harm. Paedophilia seems to have strong genetic links, as does depression. Being natural doesn't make them morally neutral. Although we see ageing as a natural part of life, we still may deem it "incorrect" or "unjust" that this is the case. I still cried when my grandad died, despite knowing it would one day happen and it is natural.
-
I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it. This was discussed in Socrates's republic, actually. Just looking at history, we can see that during times of war, men DO rape. Look at the Japanese in China, the soviets in Germany. The Russians currently in Ukraine. Humans are slightly more malleable to the environment due to being a more social species. Yet, its evident we have "immoral" desires.
Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
Black widows eat their mates as they fuck. Hamsters eat their children. I don't think of those as human nature. I guess the definition I'm thinking of is something like "innate to species, inherent to species"
but this isn't my debate, you do you.
As long as you cant prove the foetus isn't a human. All you point out is the idea that people can be insensitive to another human life if it doesn't benefit them in some form. I would argue that natural fact doesn't make it moral or acceptable.
Why is rape not a naturally evolutionary form of conduct? We see it within the animal kingdom. Male geese literally have a penis like a padlock opener so they can rape female geese.
What does something have to be to be quantified as "natural" for you? what does something being natural look like?
I don't think of rape including all pedophilia or murder as natural processes.
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.
Women's reactions are a lot more varied than that and heavily linked to whether the woman is trying to get pregnant or not. Later term is usually more painful and emotional then early. First spontaneous abortions are usually more emotional than later ones. Women who've waited until relatively late to get pregnant sometimes worry that they might have blown their chance. Throughout most of human history, one fourth of children didn't live to one years old (my grandmothers first two children died in their first year) and half of all children died before 12 years old- so on the spectrum of grief, abortions ranked relatively low. I don't think there much evidence for fetal pain before the third trimester.
It could be argued that it is human nature for most men to rape in times of war, when they know they can get away with it. Hate, which leads to killing others, is not one would say is virtuous, yet it remains part of the nature of being a human. It is evident we are in constant war with ourselves, constantly monitoring and judging if an action is acceptable, natural or not. Paedophilia and psychopathy seem to have genetic ties, and therefore are "natural". That doesn't mean we find such things morally permissible.
-
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.
Sure but few people are going to think of a natural process that happens to them as violation a of norms or standards or think of themselves as doing something wrong. Dying of natural causes, for example, always implies a lack of foul play.
Something can be natural while being immoral. Calling a miscarriage an abortion feels like a strawman too. Although technically correct, no one says they "had an abortion" when they had a miscarriage. It's like someone saying gay people are bad and someone goes, "Actually, gay just means happy!"
CON's R1 SOURCES
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abortion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443861/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
no forfiet lets go whoever poses the best case wins.
just for you