THBT: Personhood begins at conception [for @Benjamin]

Thanks for voting!

Thank you for voting.

Thank you for voting.

As I already addressed with a previous vote, I'm not clear that any of those statements violate rules regarding personal attacks. I see your point about his being rude and even making statements impugning the character of his opponent, but that's not sufficient under the existing voting standards to award conduct.

As for violating the rules, I'll admit this is a bit of a grey area. If you think there is a rule violation going on here, then that can be a basis for awarding conduct. Challenging the definition, even one stated in the description, is often a given when it comes to running Kritiks and not everyone is going to be on-board for that, but that alone would not be sufficient reason to award conduct. Given that it's one point and both I (and apparently Bones - good on you) still plan to vote, I'm going to opt to leave your vote up.

I'll give voting a go but I had a look and it's a bit messy to adjudicate so I'll see what I can do.

No, I awarded conduct to Pro because Con was rude, starting in Round 2. Let's review:

"PRO invokes a supposedly “binding” and completely made up definition of personhood from the description. But I only need to reject his absurd interpretation of it:"

"The description does not specify that "any" moral consideration is enough. That was an attempted addition by PRO in R1. If his intention was to be intellectually honest then he should have specified that crucial detail in the description instead of leaving it open for debate."

"If on the other hand he wanted to fight extremely dirty by committing a bait and switch and trapping me in a truism debate, then this is a case of cheating with absurd special rules."

"In which case voters are not only allowed but encouraged by the Code of conduct and DART culture to punish PRO and accept my framework instead."

"PRO says I agree that you can be a moral patient and a person without any relevant traits. He lied, I never said that."

"PRO wants semantics and dirty play by abusing supposedly “binding” definitions. I will now give him exactly that."

"In a futile effort to avoid this decimating impact, PRO claims that considering zygotes persons does not entail actually treating them like persons. That is cowardly and flat out absurd."

"PRO does not deny that claiming not to need conclusive evidence for zygote personhood is wrong and incredibly bad faith. Instead he lies and says I don’t dispute this point when I clearly do."

Elsewhere, he accuses Pro of purposefully trying to manipulate the terms of the debate for an easy win. (Even if, purely for the sake of argument, there were a hint of truth to that, the debate definitions were laid out before Con accepted, no? Couldn't he have asked for a re-worded definition prior to accepting? And if that were Pro's interpretation but not one set in stone by the definition wording, then it would suffice for Con to amicably contest Pro's favored interpretation.)

None of these remarks, singularly, are beyond the pale. But cumulatively they are uncivil, and with all due respect I shouldn't even have to point this out. Con accuses Pro of "playing dirty", "cheating", "lying", being "cowardly", and so on. If Pro resorted to the same language, then please point to me where this happens and I will voluntarily change my vote.
Conduct is worth a measly 1 point. But it's 1 point that you, the administrators of this site, gave us to lightly penalize bad manners. Is it unacceptable to you that I, a voter who spent probably about 2 hours reading this debate, should exercise that option where plainly warranted?

Would be good to get a tiebreaker on this!

So, if I’m reading this correctly, your basis for the conduct violation is that Con tried to change the definition provided in the description and “a few other things I've seen”. Can you elaborate on the latter? Debating definitions, even those provided in the description, is not on its face sufficient to award conduct.

I’m working on my own vote. It’s been slow going, still hoping to get it up in time.

Tiebreakers needed! I know you are both busy, so much thanks if you do take the time to vote.

This is your last day to remove the invalid conduct vote and, if you want to, provide your own tiebreaker vote.

In Round 3, Pro takes Con's round 2 conduct in stride and argues calmly. He reiterates his position that robbing future experiences is harm, and says a bit more on the subject of entitlement. But I will say this: by the time he's done, he has not resolved the violinist analogy. It's also not damning, but he hasn't proven that a pig is undeserving of personhood. Finally, he never seriously engages with the question of social harm.

Con makes a strange point about "dispositional desires". A desire is either felt in a specific moment or it isn't. You do not magically continue to desire when you are not conscious, even if while unconscious you retain the brain structure that would cause you to resume desire upon waking.

Con attempts to challenge Pro's distinction between zygotes and sperm/unfertilized eggs. Pro's position is that the former is already on a path that leads to personhood, while the latter is on no such path and will not embark on such unless further steps are taken. A fair point would be that the continuous volunteering of the mother's body to care for a zygote is a "step" equal to the step of a sperm fertilizing an egg. However, at the end of the day Con didn't manage to be convincing on this front. There is a discernable distinction until clearly proven otherwise.

Throughout the debate, Con stressed that a desire to remain alive, either currently expressed or in the past, is crucial to the definition of being a person. This is questionable; for example, if a 4 year old child never experienced fear (as a tiny handful of people never do), and was unaware of death, we wouldn't dispute their personhood.

When all was said and done, Con never demonstrated that future experiences are irrelevant to the question of personhood. Instead, he placed a big emphasis on a person's past in defining them, which there is no convincing reason to assign greater weight to.

CONCLUSION: I am undecided on whose arguments won the day. Neither gave a satisfactory answer to all of the other's questions, or perhaps I'm just not confident that I understood it all. However, I am awarding Pro conduct. Hopefully Con will be more civil in future debates.

Pro tears apart Con's flimsy distinction between an embryo and a comatose patient, with the only remaining difference being a greater presence of anatomy in the comatose patient. Pro then uses the first scientific argument I liked: that brain cells in a comatose patient regenerate in a manner similar to embryonic/fetal development. That being said, it's not a very relevant point.

Finally, Pro dismisses the point about documentation as not relevant but dodges the question of social harm to parties other than unborn children.

Con, after accepting the debate, tries to dismiss the definition of personhood cited in the debate description. It can be assumed that "given moral consideration" means sufficient moral consideration to entail a right to live, as opposed to merely not causing pain, since both seem to agree pigs are excluded from personhood despite being moral patients. After reading this paragraph, and combined with a few other things I've seen, Con definitely loses the Conduct point. Let's move on.

Con, once again, tries to cite academics as conclusive empirical evidence, despite it being outside their purview to empirically answer a philosophical question when the facts that give rise to the question (future consciousness) are undisputed. Then he reiterates the social harm angle that he harped on in Round 1. Next, relating to the "uncertainty" argument, he repeats his yet unproven assumption that it's of no consequence to kill a live zygote, therefore there's no uncertainty. This amounts to "it's true because I say it's true".

Con says that a pig can feel pain or distress whereas a zygote presently cannot. This is true, but also circumstantial. One could, for example, instantly kill an unsuspecting pig by shooting it in the head with a sniper rifle from a great distance. Assuming one had perfect ability to pull this off without causing pain, the circumstances would not be more sketchy than killing a zygote. He says that a pig has already had experiences, and this fact confers moral value. I ask the question: if the zygote's future does not matter, then why does the pig's past? Neither is the present.

Before moving on, Con asserts that a society should not prioritize the rights of hypothetical future people over the rights of currently living people. However, humans routinely worry about the consequences of our actions for humans alive after we are dead. For example, concerns over the national debt or climate change. A reasonable person would not claim that because their future son or daughter hasn't been conceived yet, they are not concerned over the world said son or daughter will have to live in.

Con shoots down Pro's citations using the same. While this is fair game, assertions about philosophy, even those made by authoritative sources, hold no empirical weight in themselves. For example, if Pro believes that the harm principle should guide the actions of individuals, then he is not proven wrong simply because a webpage says so. Rather, he's proven wrong if and only if it can be demonstrated that his position is logically incoherent or self-contradictory.

At this point Con brings up the strongest point of his Round 1 argument: the violinist analogy. A person who "would die" hypothetically might not if extreme steps which violated another's rights were taken. Therefore, he argues, a zygote's hypothetical lifespan can only be calculated assuming said violation (of the mother). The zygote is constantly dependent on the mother's continued support to stay alive. This is a knot Pro must try to unravel going forward.

Next, Con challenges the teleological assumptions underpinning Pro's argument. Normally a zygote will develop into a fully developed person, but this could be, morally speaking, a coincidence or irrelevant fact. On this note he curiously draws a distinction between this and a comatose patient, who is already fully formed. However, the comatose patient is arguably not fully formed, because he does not have the functions of a conscious person. There is a similar teleological assumption here, though Con may solve this dilemma by saying that the comatose patient doesn't have rights. This is easy to do, but hard to swallow.

Finally, Con revisits Pro's assumption that killing some animals, such as pigs, is not problematic. A pig certainly is closer to sentience at the present moment than a zygote; if killing one is acceptable, he reasons, then so is killing a zygote.

In Round 2, Pro reiterates that, in his view, severing a fetus from its mother's womb is the cause of what consequences to it follow. This is not a sufficient challenge to the violinist analogy, because it takes as a given that the fetus has a right to be in the mother's womb, therefore removing it does it harm, and to avoid this harm it has a right to be in its mother's womb. This is circular reasoning. He could've argued for a child's entitlement to be protected from harms like exposure to the elements, but he doesn't say enough about this.

He draws a distinction between human fetuses and pigs because pigs are not human beings. At first, he doesn't properly explain why this definition of personhood is relevant. Like Con in Round 1, he falls back on a questionable appeal to consensus ("social contract"). But then he clarifies that a person will eventually enjoy greater sentience than a pig is capable of. I find this more satisfactory.

In Round 1, Pro uses analogies to demonstrate that immediate consciousness is not a necessary criterion for personhood. For example, a comatose person feels no pain and has no consciousness. They would feel no pain if killed then and there, but it would nonetheless be a violation of their rights because the future utility that they would enjoy, or plausible might enjoy, would or plausibly might be robbed without their consent. At the heart of Pro's argument is the assumption that future experiences ought to be given equal weight to present ones. If this can be disproven, then his Round 1 falls apart. And he argues that if said assumption might possibly be correct, then one should err on the side of caution and acknowledge the unborn child's rights.

Con draws a distinction between moral agents and moral patients, with the latter being that which merely can experience harm/suffering and the former being that which has a more complicated being. He references sources which attempt to define personhood, definitions which lean toward moral agents while excluding moral patients. This works if both sides would, or are obliged to, accept the definitions given by these sources. That's not the case here; Pro does not accept that attributes like "rationality or logical reasoning ability" must be immediately present for one to be a person, while for Con this is a takeaway from the sources which he cites. In the debate description, personhood was defined as "the point at which a human being ought to be given moral consideration". This is the definition that I'll accept as binding. Since this is a philosophical question, and since Con doesn't contest in Round 1 that a single-cell embryo is a "human being", Con's citations do not lend empirical weight toward their definition of personhood. So then, Con begins to debate the issue.

Con argues that recognizing personhood of zygotes is impractical. To be morally consistent, it would need to be generally, whereas most zygotes die naturally at the time of conception. Con argues that banning abortion causes medical harm to women, and can harm their economic prospects. This is self-evidently true. He argues that, to enforce the personhood of zygotes, it would be necessary to incarcerate all women who have abortions, which is impractical. On this note Con argues that most people, even pro-lifers, cannot bring themselves to fully consider the personhood of zygotes, since they can't bring themselves to support said mass incarceration of women who have early stage abortions. This argument holds weight if consensus is the most important criterion for personhood, but not if a accepted consensus on personhood can be considered objectively wrong per a different criterion.

I read that wrong. My bad!

Yeah, it's 4 days. No rush.

Do you mean 4 days? Or is there a special policy for revoting?

You have four hours remaining to revote. Nothing in the vote needs to be reworked, save for simply not penalizing conduct.
Conduct may still be mentioned as it was in the previous vote, since voters are allowed to comment on categories they ultimately do not award.

Yes. You should not be concerned with posting the vote as regards argument points.

Was my awarding of the points for arguments approved?

I'll re-vote properly this time.

As for future voting when awarding or allotting conduct points, I'll also keep that clarification in mind.

I appreciate the detail, but it doesn't look like this is going to suffice.

For the first example, suggesting that someone has made an argument in bad faith isn't a conduct violation. Yes, his goal is to get voters to see it the same way. That's true of a wide variety of arguments that are above board. As for calling the argument moronic, that is a personal attack... directed at the argument. People are allowed to insult points.

For the second, name-dropping the other debater isn't a personal attack, and given that we're talking about debate and whether someone is correct or not in their interpretation, there has to be room to call someone out for perceived lies. That seems like something you'd assess under arguments rather than conduct, otherwise every time someone called another debater out for a perceived falsehood would warrant a conduct point.

The third example is you calling out the debater's use of a kritik and calling on voters to take action based on a perceived slight. A kritik does directly call someone out on their interpretation of the debate. To some degree, it necessarily is a personal attack on how the other side manipulated the debate. That being said, this interpretation would functionally render any kritik a conduct violation. Even a poorly justified kritik, so long as it's not absolutely vile, should not automatically be penalized simply for being a kritik of the opponent's choices or behavior.

So, I'm going to go ahead and remove the vote as it stands. I think too much of this reasoning cuts into the "I have a problem with this commonly used tactic in debate as employed here" reasoning, and though you did provide detailed reasoning, I don't think what you've given here meets the voting standards. Barney already posted the full text of the vote below, and you're welcome to re-post it without the issues relating to the conduct point violation. It will stand based on how you evaluated arguments.

There are a few subtle instances where Con implies Pro is being manipulative or assumes the intent to deceive, which I am inferring is a passive attack on Pro's character in this debate.:

1. "Uncertainty principle
The comparison PRO uses is completely moronic. The uncertainty is about whether the unresponsive body is a corpse or a person. The zygote is completely different. We know that it is alive, but we have no evidence that killing it would be immoral. PRO argues that he does not need certainty of personhood based on conclusive evidence. This is wrong and also incredibly bad faith."

This first example illustrates Con is implying Pro is being manipulative by suggesting he is being bad faith, and then he drops the word moronic to attack his argument.

2. "Stop lying, Savant. The zygote cannot even exist, much less continue developing, without protection and constant nourishment from the mother. Before week 20, even a fairly developed fetus would die instantly outside of the womb [7]. The mother could kill the zygote by simply refusing to constantly add bodily functions - which you have conceded would not be a harm."

This second example is him name-dropping Savant directly to call him a liar.

3. "PRO invokes a supposedly “binding” and completely made up definition of personhood from the description. But I only need to reject his absurd interpretation of it:

The description does not specify that "any" moral consideration is enough. That was an attempted addition by PRO in R1.
If his intention was to be intellectually honest then he should have specified that crucial detail in the description instead of leaving it open for debate.
If on the other hand he wanted to fight extremely dirty by committing a bait and switch and trapping me in a truism debate, then this is a case of cheating with absurd special rules.
In which case voters are not only allowed but encouraged by the Code of conduct and DART culture to punish PRO and accept my framework instead."

This third example is him accusing Pro of cheating without evidence and urging voters to penalize him without sufficient justification.

I’ve looked it over and I’d like to get a better idea of what you’re specifically using as a basis for conduct. You give these statements as justification:

“Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.”
“Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion.”

As a general rule, calling an argument moronic is not a basis for awarding conduct. Conduct is usually saved for personal attacks. Accusations of lying can be seen as attacking one’s character, but I’ll need specifics on that, since most instances are usually fair game within a debate (i.e. a debater is allowed to call someone’s argument into question using a wide variety of means). Name-dropping doesn’t suffice, either.

Aside from that, what do you mean by “disrespect”? I don’t think that would rise to the level of a conduct violation, but specifics would be welcome.

FYI, conduct isn’t for minor differences, but rather a penalty for objectively awful behavior.

I believe whiteflame is reviewing your vote, he may or may not have feedback on arguments. Skimming your vote, arguments look ok to me (but again, I only skimmed)

Hero_In_Instatute
04.12.2024 09:44PM

Reason:
Both debaters aren't arguing the resolution. When I read or skim the debate, it is clear they are arguing over whether abortion is murder and therefore wrong or not wrong. That is not the subject of the debate, the subject of the debate is whether personhood begins at conception or not.
We are not here to argue whether abortion is wrong or not wrong. Therefore, whoever stays on topic and argues the resolution the best will get the point for arguments.
Pro starts off appealing to examples of moral consistency and semantics. Personhood begins at conception because the lifeform is already human and will eventually develop to have consciousness, sentience, and emotions. If an action interferes with this potential by stopping it, then this action is defined as a harm. Pro argues that a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as an adult because their value and worth are not different. If killing an adult human or an infant is wrong, then the same is true for fetuses. Pro contends with the idea that abortion is acceptable, but euthanizing coma patients is murder by pointing out that any justification or argument someone applies to not killing a coma patient can also be used to save the life of a fetus. That intelligence and sentience do not determine whether a person is worthy of moral consideration.
(Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human. We could also use a judging criteria for what to consider moral consideration. Proportional harm/benefit, context, and the method is too vaguely defined.)
Con begins very strongly. Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting. Specifically, the example where murdering a human is worse than murdering a pig. Con's point here is that pro's version of personhood contains qualities of exceptionalism that give it unfair privilege over other species. Con defines the qualities that constitute personhood.: Sentience, autonomy, and critical thinking. Con reasons that a zygote possesses none of these qualities and therefore has no moral value. Con's arguments also begin to go off-topic and are irrelevant, such as when he mentions that banning abortion harms women. This is outside the scope of the debate because this does nothing to tell me why or why zygotes aren't persons. Con's rebuttal against Pro's Uncertainty Principle does not refute the example. While Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life.) Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying.
Pro argues that all humans are persons, regardless of their stage of development. And that according to the social contract, a human killing another human is more immoral than a human killing another pig and that the consensus for moral value is not defined by an intelligence gap. Pro defends that fetuses are worthy of moral consideration by mentioning their potentiality. Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people.
Given the debate, the victory does seem to be slightly in Pro's favor but only slightly, as this debate could have went any way. Pro didn't need to define killing as wrong, he needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this.
Conduct goes to Pro because there are a couple of times Con disrespects Pro in this discussion. Both sides scored equal on sources and legibility, as both provided a similar volume of links and had consistent spelling & grammar.

Feel free to scrutinize the votes in my favor. I think it is important that all of the votes on this debate are held to the same standard.

Hero_In_Statute also writes that
>"Pro doesn't give a strong justification for why murder is wrong and why humans fall into the category of personhoods, even if I buy that fetuses are human"
>"Con cleverly points out that Pro's own concept he gives for personhood is self-refuting."
>"Pro didn't define what he considers personhood, he did clearly describe an example of harm as something that ends life."

Which is a context that makes it really weird when he says that "Con argues there is no reason to give moral consideration to imaginary future people, but Pro has refuted this by explaining that fetuses are already living people." If the voter doesn't think that PRO has properly defined personhood or justified why humans are persons, then why does he accept PRO's claim that fetuses are already people. If he doesn't think that PRO has properly established personhood, then he must by default accept my criterias that are backed by academic sources, which are also the only ones the voter recognized.

Conduct.
Optional. One point.

Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Hero_In_Statue gave conduct point because: "Con also breaks the conduct rule by describing Pro's example as moronic and name-dropping him directly to accuse him of lying."
>Calling a specific argument moronic is not a personal attack. Especially when it is not an attempt to avoid adressing the argument, but just as a prelude to a rebuttal of the specific argument.
>Saying that one specific claim is a lie is also not a personal attack. Especially when it is followed up immidiately with an actuall adressing of the claim and why it is obviously wrong.
>Voter ignores that I name dropped Savant 4 times, 3 of which were "thank you, Savant", which I don't say to everyone I debate, but specifically to those I want to show respect for.
>>So clearly, I don't show a pattern of disrespecting my opponent.

Even if voter thinks I had used 1 personal attack, that would only be a valid reason for conduct point if I used it INSTEAD of arguments, which was obviously not the case.

Voter also ignored similarly minor infractions by PRO such as this quote: """Con tries to justify mutilating children in utero so they grow up disabled"""
>I never did that, I just claimed that PRO had rejected all the arguments that could be used to condemn it.
>Wrongly accusing opponent of justifying mutilation is far worse than accusing of making a lie.

Code of Conduct verdict:
"Conduct point is Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is TO MINOR FOR A REASONABLE PERSON TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DISTRACTED FROM THE TOPIC."

Arguments.
I must say, I have nothing against being voted against or losing this debate, indeed I expected that outcome from the begining. But I won't to lose due to valid votes.

Hero_In_Statute wrote: """Pro needed to establish a criteria regarding what makes someone worthy of moral consideration and what doesn't. Con is the only one to do this, and if Pro didn't pushback with counter-examples and inconsistencies in society's morals, Con would have won this."""

Voter clearly defined what he required PRO to do to win this debate, and then clearly states that PRO did not fullfill that criteria. Saying that PRO pushed back on my affirmative case is not the same as stating that you found his affirmative case more convincing. Hero_In_Statute should re-vote without awarding conduct point and with a clear and understandable explanation for argument point.

Alright, this one's next.

Well, Benjamin is going to lose anyway, so no harm done.

I'm not trying to evaluate how long you spent reading the debate or coming to a decision. Only you know that. I'm also not trying to determine if you were biased, revenge voting or even honest. I'm just looking at your vote and seeing whether it meets some basic criteria. That doesn't make it a good or a bad vote, it just makes it a vote that meets the voting standards.

I thought my vote took most of the arguments into consideration, as I did try to accuratelly represent both sides of the debate and vote in a completely unbiased way as I spent 15 days working on my vote and its definitely not a revenge vote caused by Benjamin's similar vote on one of my debates, but it was most certainly an honest vote. Regardless, if people think its not good enough, then I guess its good that it got removed.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro (arguments)
>Reason for Decision: Holy God, Con makes bunch of assumptions and never negates comparison to newborn argument or operation analogy argument, so easy win for Pro with no much thinking needed.

>Reason for Mod Action:

To award arguments, the voter must assess specific points brought up by both sides in the debate and evaluate them as regards the resolution. Here, the voter simply says that one side "makes bunch of assumptions" and points to two arguments from the other without explaining why either of those points are sufficient to affirm the resolution. The voter has to detail more of their thought process so, yes, more "thinking needed."
**************************************************

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Plz vote!

Both of you have shown interest in this topic. Please vote on this if you get the chance!

True

I actually didn't expect to do so many abortion debates when I started out. But it's an issue that most people are willing to do debates on. Easier to get a contender on abortion than on more obscure topics.

This issue must really be up your alley huh

I don't think you are. I think he was canadian and you appear to be canadian but you have the same arguments as Zmikecuber. I think his focus would be more spread than yours though. As far as what topics he debates, it would be less focused.

your arguments are technically less convincing but more concise which is where he should have moved. I don't want to embarrass myself so let me think for a second before I say the name.

Those arguments look familiar, particularly the future like ours argument which I stole from another debater myself. I am sure he didn't create the argument whole cloth and his style is a little different from yours but it would be by now anyway. Are you him?

Argument time changed to one week

Time to lose some elo lol.

Fine by me, but I will prefer one week for argument.