Instigator / Pro
Points: 3

I'm pro-abortion: change my mind

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
The debate proposition is that I AM pro-abortion and you must change my mind to win the debate. Since I absolutely refuse to change my mind I will still be pro-abortion and thus the proposition of the debate title will remain untouched no matter what. I automatically win because I literally AM pro-abortion and you literally CAN'T change my mind because I refuse no matter what to change my opinion.

Good luck.

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
My dog is barking
he hates hearing neighbor kids
he wants to bite them
Published:
Since the resolution is to be interpreted that way, I as Con refuse to change your mind. Bad luck, you just failed to uphold the resolution.
Round 3
Published:
I'm pro-abortion and you aren't changing my mind.
Published:
Exactly. The resolution, as you defined it, is you proposing that I change your mind.
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Murder is a legal term. If you want to give abortion a negative spin, you can call it unjustified killing.
#23
Added:
--> @Alec
My point was whether it is legal or not does not make it morally right or not murder.
#22
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
"It's legality does not have to do with it. God's standards are."
The US does not have religious law. Otherwise, we would have to kill people for doing things that the bible prescribes the death penalty for.
#21
Added:
--> @Alec
Abortion is murder. It's legality does not have to do with it. God's standards are. Small counts as anyone, mainly children, who are incapable or too young too fully understand the concept of Christ.
"Life is valuable, heaven is priceless. What's better for the kid, especially if before 20 weeks?"
The kid will grow up and have the choice to accept God. God gives us free will, that's how much he loves us. God is against abortion. Overall, God has a plan for anything that isn't in our grasp to understand.
#20
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
"So you concede small children go to heaven?"
If that's what the bible says, it's what the bible says. I'm not an expert on the bible, but I know some verses. Of course, what counts as "small"?
Abortion is not murder since it's legal. If I believed the unborn did not go to heaven, I would be pro life. But they do go to heaven, so they are gaining from their death.
Life is valuable, heaven is priceless. What's better for the kid, especially if before 20 weeks?
#19
Added:
--> @Alec
So you concede small children go to heaven? It is disgusting to suggest God is pro-abortion. He created every baby uniquely from the moment of conception. He wants them to have a life. He is strictly against murder, and abortion is murder.
#18
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
I read your paragraphs, and if God loves his children, he ought to support abortion because it sends the kids to heaven. Should we agree to disagree on this topic?
#17
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
No. I just am busy since I got like 6 notifications.
#16
Added:
--> @Alec
Since I see you're online and not responding did i change ur mind?
#15
Added:
--> @Alec
" If unborn children go to heaven and might go to hell if on Earth, then lets send them to heaven."
I just typed like 5 paragraphs of verses and explanations of people who are incapable of knowing god and babies going to heaven.
"He shows love by burning all his opponents in hell"
He is a just god. People who willfully reject Christ go to hell. Heaven is for the believers and accepter's of god's love. This is off topic btw
Yes Ben Shapiro will go to hell.
#14
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
"We can be assured that God will do what is right and loving because He is the standard of rightness and love." If unborn children go to heaven and might go to hell if on Earth, then lets send them to heaven.
He shows love by burning all his opponents in hell. It would be like the regressive left claiming that they stood for progress, by abolishing free speech and by bringing back tribalism.
If it takes a willful rejection of Jesus to go to hell, does that mean Ben Shapiro will go to hell?
#13
Added:
--> @Alec
And yes, Ben Shapiro is going to hell. He has not accepted Christ as dying on the cross.
#12
Added:
--> @Alec
However, another point may be helpful in answering this question. While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation--whether general or specific--not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8).
Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God's general revelation that renders them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20)? They will be judged according to the light they received. Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin--including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin. But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord.
#11
Added:
--> @Alec
Second Samuel 12:23 is one of the passages often quoted to imply that babies go to heaven. Though the verse doesn't explicitly say that, David clearly does expect to one day be reunited with his departed child. Since we know David is a believer whose destiny was heaven, we can infer that his hope of reunion means he expected his child to be in heaven. Thus, 2 Samuel 12:23 suggests strong evidence for a heavenly destiny of the unborn and children who die young.
If this were all we had to support our position, it would be admittedly less than stalwart. However, there are other evidences that point us to the same conclusion. First, the Bible clearly teaches that God cares deeply for children. Passages like Matthew 18:1-6 and 19:13-15 affirm the Lord's love for them. Those verses don't state that children go to heaven, but they do show God's heart toward children. He created and cares for children, and beyond that, He always accomplishes His perfect will in every circumstance.
The psalmist reminds us that God is "full of compassion and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth" (Ps. 86:15). He is the God who became flesh that He might carry our sins away by His death on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). He is the God who will comfort Christians in heaven, for "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death; nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain" (Rev. 21:4). We can be assured that God will do what is right and loving because He is the standard of rightness and love. Those considerations alone seem to be evidence enough of God's particular, electing love shown to the unborn and those who die young.
#10
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Where does it say that? If that's true, then why does the bible say that most will go to hell? To the Muslim, Allah is as real as God is to the Christian, or as Buddha is to the Buddhist. The bible says most people will burn in hell. There are 2 possible scenarios to how this could play out. 1) Only Christians go to heaven. If this is true, then Ben Shapiro is going to hell. Hopefully, it's not true. 2) Only devout people would go to heaven. If this is true, what counts as "devout"? If Devout Christians go to a christian heaven, if devout Muslims go to a Muslim heaven, etc, then a devout atheist is going nowhere. They aren't going to heaven, but they get to avoid hell.
#9
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Haggling over the resolution.
Pro claims the resolution is to change his mind. Con turns this around and claims that sure - the resolution is to change his mind, but if that doesn’t happen the resolution is negated (the mind is not changed).
Pro was hoisted by his own petard here, deciding upon an undebatable topic, and trolling premise that pro clearly turned on its head. Pro offered no meaningful argument and simply restated his position. As a result - arguments to con.
Conduct to con also. While con forfeited - which normally garners a deduction. The bait and switch semantic nonsense of this debate clearly was pretty shitty overall - and worse than normal: as it is clearly an unfair premise intended to trap individuals - conduct to con also as it outweighs the forfeit.