Abortion in most cases is Murder.

A decent tactic comes to mind of a bandwagon appeal. Due to this debate being on a political issue, the beliefs of those who make the choice should not be dismissed out of hand.
From there it should be simple enough to show that

IF God,
THEN M <= 0.5
ELSE M > 0.5

Another tactic would be focus on Plan B as if it were abortion (which many cultists argue is true), which is most clearly not premeditated killing, as there is no confirmation of a pregnancy when the pill is taken (same with IUDs).

Thanks for voting.

I can see the point of reasonable doubt.

Without it, one could just throw a bunch of assumptions at opponent and every debate would be essentially a tie unless every thrown assumption is disproven.

Maybe I should have made it more reasonable, such as presenting arguments for existence of God which would lead to conclusion that God intentionally designed a large number of pregnancies to end in fetus death, essentially committing divine abortion.

I myself dont follow the principle of reasonable doubt when topic needs to be proven to be true beyond any doubt, but one can see the point of asking for doubt to be supported by some evidence.

Presenting doubts which are more probable than not is more effective for these debates, which is what I will try to work on in future.

I might get around to voting on this today. I can't promise due to a busy schedule.

I figured that with burden of proof on him, he has to prove resolution to be true by proving all counter-options false.

I simply presented a counter-option which he never disproved and which carries equal possibility of being correct as his side, making topic essentially unproven.

Of course, its not a commonly accepted debate tactic, but with it, one can counter argument almost anything, even this type of almost circular topics.

Fun argument. It initially relied too much on pro’s stated beliefs which he was easily able to counter as off topic; and then an unfortunately common misunderstanding of BoP. When you present an idea which is not a commonly accepted truism, you should provide something to imply it’s real. As an example, the Bible, and of course abortion laws being instituted by religious fanatics.

If doing something like this again, I suggest using the following debate for some inspiration: https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god

It’d be more like blaming the bullet as a defense of the gun… Or if you’re a certain type of person, claim there’s only correlation not causation between being murdered and dying (people seriously argue this).

I went the other way. I am saying that God or non-human being deliberately causes miscarriages.

Thats like shooting someone and saying the gun did it.

You're right!

Abortions are usually performed by poison pills, not people. Even surgical abortions, it's been ages since anyone made the tools out of humans. 😁

The main flaw in definitions is that in order to be murder, it must be done by another human, where in order to be abortion, it doesnt need to be done by another human.

Definitions are a tough one for these.

Under the previous someone could just point to the laws of any non-theocracy; however, under the current it implies that this debate is just about if abortion terminates a pregnancy or not.

What I would expect to happen right now is either some noob accepts and forfeits, or someone to attack the human element kritiking that most abortions target non-humans. I admit I consider it implied that this is about humans, but if there is no other room for debate within the setup, then I'll accept an otherwise bastard tactic.

There you go.

Your definition says "unlawful".

So its a debate about if its legal or not.

No, debating whether it is by my definition Murder.

I mean, just debating if its legal or not?