Life is not created at conception.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Life does not begin at conception. You can call it reproduction. Life existed before conception. That's why this term procreation is really just about confusion. Then there's needless controversy over where or when "life starts".
If you need to understand something prior to participating in the discussion, let it be known.
This is my first vote. The topic of the debate is very clear, from a linguistic perspective. "Life is not created at conception". I must say, I am not in favour of Pro's style. There is an unnecessary, and condescending edge. A clear lack of respect, or courtesy. An example "I don't think you realize the question. Perhaps going over it too fast." If Pro was concerned about the issue being comprehended, Pro should have taken the opportunity to reframe their concern. That aside, Con is the one who defined Life. That definition was not contested. That definition included the aspect of death. Therefore the definition is not implying any metaphysical or ecclesiastical concept. As requested by Pro, "by foundation of the natural laws of science, physics, biology." , which is what Con did. Con made a clear statement, with sources about what life is, and how it in fact starts at conception, stayed engaged in the debate in a courteous manner, was easy to understand and straightforward..
Side note, "So when does life start Mr. Mall?
Since the answer is so simple, I'll leave this chapter or round on a cliffhanger. Tune in to the next episode."
I never saw the answer.
As is the case with most semantic debates, I get what PRO is trying to say here, but the way they phrased the resolution doesn't do them any favors. PRO continually argues that life exists before conception, and CON points out that a new life is created at conception. CON is arguing much closer to the resolution here, because some life existing already doesn't mean that new life can't be created. CON also establishes this framework pretty clearly, and PRO goes on to argue that life comes from other life. That's true, but not really relevant to this debate with everything that CON has pointed out. In short, CON does a better job of sticking to the topic of the debate.
Don't have voting qualifications yet, but CON sounds good here. They establish definitions early on, and by the end, PRO is basically just agreeing with them.
This is nothing but a circle-jerk semantics argument.
It’s premised upon the abortion debate, and that debate centers on when the life of a potential (not an actual) person (human being) begins. The obvious answer is successful conception, which meats the very basic criterion for biological “life.” It has NOTHING to do with what was or has been determined as the very first form of “life” on this planet.
Will probably vote on this
I am not sure how @ mention works but letting you know I asked a question.
I dont mind giving a go at this but I just accepted another debate with you. Would that be a problem?
can you define life
"Type: Standard" is unrated.
Make the debate unrated and I'm more likely to accept.