Instigator / Pro
5
1485
rating
11
debates
63.64%
won
Topic
#4245

Is abortion murder from the point of conception?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
5
1

After 5 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

the_viper
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
4,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

This debate will cover all stages of pregnancy but will not cover cases of rape, the removal of ectopic pregnancies, or abortions performed to save the life of the mother. It will also not cover legality. Murder will be defined here in the moral sense. The burden of proof is shared.

All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss.

Forfeiting a round will result in a loss.

-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Sir.Lancelot

Plz vote!

"To argue that abortion is not killing an innocent human being, also known as murder, my opponent must establish that an unborn child is not human..."

~ There is only one mammalian species on this planet that possesses the level of sentience that human beings do, and that species is homo sapiens. As such, homo sapiens - i.e., human beings - are the only ones having debates/discussions about "abortion" rights of female human beings. Not any other species. To levy such a demand demonstrates that the one making said demand knows less than they think they know about the topic at hand.

You're also conflating a pregnancy with being [a] human being, which it is not; not for the legal purposes of establishing the legal felonious crime of murder. A pregnancy has NO legal rights under law. The personal liberty rights of the girl/female take precedence over any internal matter. What is in and of her body is under the auspices of her control and none other.

Murder requires an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being for it to be, "murder."

"...that an unborn child is not innocent..."

~ "innocence" is completely and utterly irrelevant in this debate/discussion. It has absolutely nothing to do with guilt, innocence, spirts, souls, or religion.

"... or that abortion does not involve killing an unborn child."

~ Using the term "child" is a flagrant misnomer. A pregnancy =/= [a] child. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will.
A pregnancy has ZERO rights. 1 USC 8: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

As this statute makes perfectly clear (predicated on the 14th Amendment), one must be born before they are bestowed all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws.

-->
@Melcharaz

do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?

not really, if we adhering to the strictist interpretaton of the rules then CON lost according to the agreed-upon rule and no further argument was required or even wanted. It is reasonable for PRO to conserve effort here until we know whether CON has any game at all.

-->
@Melcharaz

Someone's out for blood

-->
@oromagi

ok. i can understand that.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?

-->
@Melcharaz

Forfeit=auto-loss solves such conundrums and there are many. In any live debate, a debater who failed to show up for one full argument round would lose automaticaly. I think Viper should win this on conduct for forfeit and rules violation, so long as Viper keeps updating PRO's argument and CON keeps forfeiting.

-->
@blamonkey
@oromagi

what are your thoughts on this situation? have you ever encountered a rule that could tie up a vote?

-->
@Melcharaz

Up to you. Tied votes don't have the same standards as votes that award points, but if this ends up being a full forfeit debate, it may still be moderated.

i understand. and that can be justified by invoking the spirit of a debate. the purpose of a debate is to create dialogue and FAIR grounds for exchange for ideas according to bsh1 and 1st meep.

-->
@Melcharaz

You could award points for neither side. if tatie.bella does effectively do a full forfeit at 40% or greater, then you would have to justify why you see that as equally important to violating a rule set out in the description (i.e. why multiple forfeits would not be considered multiple violations of that rule in the description, and why their general absenteeism is an equal grievance, especially if they haven't made an argument by the end of the debate).

-->
@whiteflame

so if i interpret the rules as binding i can vote points as tie even if tatie.bella would be the first to forfeit 40%?

To be clear, there is no way for both sides to lose a debate. They can tie or one side can lose. There is no other option.

-->
@Melcharaz

There is nothing automatic here. Voters may decide how to apply rules as written in the description, and the debaters themselves can make a case for how voters should view them. As long as the voter can adequately justify their decision, even if that means allocating some points to each side or tying the score as a result (I guess both would be some form of a "double loss," as you put it), they can. That being said, if a voter decides to award points based on the rules in the description, they must consider all those rules, and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit.

-->
@Melcharaz

I'm fine leaving this up to whiteflame, but I'll be annoyed if my first loss is on a technicality.

-->
@whiteflame

As chief moderator i believe you have ultimate authority to allow such rules to create such a scenario or not. i am unaware of any prescedents.

-->
@the_viper

see below

no, first loss is usually the perimeter. however, due to the description given, simotaneous loss is alloted. the rules governing the usual flow of debates has been altered by consent to description by both parties. therefore, both have lost.

see voting policy under Cheating, absurd special rules, and i quote:
"… Not to be confused with merely somewhat unfair ones, like setting favorable definitions (to which their opponent could have requested alterations prior to the start)."
it is therefore implied that because alterations COULD be requested, that the rules laid out operate under authority.

it is recognized as the framework
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
V debating jargon
and furthermore
VI Debating
"Debating typically begins in the first round of the debate. The rules of the debate, as well as the exact topic or resolution up for debate, should be made clear in the debate's full description or title."

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1CJQT_PS9k82QkgrsyTQMKaQ90uY9yubVT0KPMR9XFcc/mobilebasic
see "rules" under "formating/making rules for a debate" I quote:
"First, these rules help you define for the judge what penalty should be issued for a forfeit."

unless there is a meep that specifically addresses this type of frame work, the description rules you posted are authoritative and create a double loss scenario.

-->
@Melcharaz

Once someone loses, the debate is over. You can't lose a debate that someone else has already lost.

-->
@Melcharaz

They have already won, he could say as many or little characters as they wants, it wouldn't matter.

"All arguments", they were never specific if they were talking about publishing an argument or making an argument. Since they weren't making an argument, and was clarifying they won, technically they hasn't lost. Let me be a bit more specific, since they weren't 'really' making an argument but an extend and end, they won by default.

Such as if another debate said "forfeited round = loss and at least 100 characters", con forfeited an argument and con said "extend". They have already won, therefore it doesn't matter.

according to viper's rules, he also has lost.

"All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss."

"Forfeiting a round will result in a loss."

his round 2 post is under 3500 characters. he should have made 3500 characters even if it was just him spamming 1 letter.

he did not specify the conditions were nullified once the other person broke said conditions first.

-->
@the_viper

If you change the time for argument to 2 days and switch the debate from Standard to Rated, I shall accept.