Instigator / Pro
20
1540
rating
30
debates
56.67%
won
Topic
#943

Legislatively Speaking: The Alabama Abortion Law is bad

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Vader
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
10
1476
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description

RULES
1. This is not an ethical debate, this is a legislative debate like stated. We are looking at this bill legislatively
2. Appropriate conduct is needed for this debate
3. Follow DART Guidelines
4. No K's, Topicality
5. I will state the definiton of abortion in the debate FIRST ROUND, you can counter interp this if you wan't
6. Organized arguments

STRUCTURE
PRO R1-Introduction to argument (3 points)
CON R1-Response to arguments (1 new argument to build)
R2-R3: Rebuttals
R4: Concluding statement

Efharisto para poli!

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: Tie

RFD: Both were very rude towards each-other and the argument didn't go anywhere.
The spelling and grammar for both were also equally as decent, same with sources.
In the end, neither convinced me.

Reason for mod action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.



The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@Vader

Report my vote and if it gets removed I'll do a revote.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

You have to give a reasoning why arguments didn't convince

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed

Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************

-->
@blamonkey
@Vader
@Dr.Franklin

Frank - "I KNOW THAT I TOLD YOU ALREADY"
I feel as if we are going in a repetitive motion and saying the same thing. The point I am making is IN a debate it was bad conduct from my opponent which makes it different from swearing in the comments (since it isn't a civil debate).

"I never claimed you had bad conduct. Im just saying that you cant get mad at someone for swearing when you called me a stupid little bitch"
Like I said I dont care that he swore. I just pointed that out to get the conduct point. You didnt have to say "No you called me one in the comments" I know i called you it in the comments, but Im saying I didnt call you one in the debate not because you claimed so, but because its different between debate and comments

SupaDudz - "Thank you both for voting"
Translation: Thanks for voting for me. Lmfao. I'm sure if they voted me as winner, you wouldn't be thanking them.

blamonkey - Exactly, that's my point. As I've explained in the debate twice, you can't discuss legality without mentioning morality. Because morality and ethics are the cause of legalities. Of course the people who have voted thus far are so delusional with Pro's side, so their overall reasoning is "Because I supposedly didn't talk about legalities when I talked mostly about morality" which is not true. Regardless of your vote is if it's for me or Pro, thanks for voting!

-->
@King_8

I KNOW THAT I TOLD YOU ALREADY

-->
@Vader
@King_8

Didn't vote yet. I just wanted to say that given the topic, it's going to be hard to talk about some legitimate harms without the point bleeding over into "moral" territory. I haven't read the full debate yet, so maybe it's better defined in the debate as to what constitutes a legislative failure without factoring morality into the debate.

-->
@Barney

Yea, I knew that was bad so I didn't respond to that. I was just refering to underlined text

-->
@Vader

You likely got frustrated (justifiably so), but ended up saying this: "THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO CONCEDE TO MY TOPICS PRESENTED!!! AND THAT IS NOT OFF-TOPIC IN ANYWAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!"

You got 4 points instead of 5, it's more or less me reminding you to be careful in future debates.

-->
@King_8

I never claimed you had bad conduct. Im just saying that you cant get mad at someone for swearing when you called me a stupid little bitch

-->
@Barney

Regarding the text font

I used the italics to give a note to the judge or the debater that is to proclaim something. The bold was a structuring of the layout.

-->
@Barney
@Speedrace

Thank you both for voting

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Exactly thats my point I called you one in the comments, not a debate so it doesn't count as bad conduct since we were not debating. Bye

-->
@King_8

No you called me one in the comments

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I never called you a bitch in a debate though so lol

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Lmao I honestly don't care I only pointed it out so people would give me the conduct point

-->
@King_8

You called me a stupid little bitch and your complaining over the word "bullshit".WOW

-->
@Vader

"Straddling the fence is better than climbing over it" haha good one.
No where in the COC does it say swearing is allowed, they will PM people if they swear lol even if it's small but whatever

-->
@King_8

Yea because it is. Nothing against it in the CoC! Swearing is allowed. I didn't call you directly anything. Straddling the fence is better than climbing over it

-->
@Vader

You just admitted to calling the argument bullshit. Stop straddling the fence. It is direct. You are bullshit, now that's direct. How about that, deuces

-->
@King_8

"You can not just say bullshit after I point it out! "

Calling a bluff argument without evidence bullshit is not direct. It had no sources or valid points with evidence, so it is considered in that regard "bullshit"

-->
@Vader

But calling someone's points "bullshit" which is directed towards their argument is okay. Interesting

-->
@King_8

Cause it was direct toward someone.

If it isn't specifically direct, then they will allow it.

-->
@Vader

Wow, DART allows swearing? Interesting. Coming from the fact of how strict the mods are. If you even breathe, they are on your a** and nagging on everybody. I said "Fuck you" once. (One cuss word) yet a mod came to my whining about that. Plus with DART's strict Code of Conduct I even find it hard to believe that they allow very little cussing, yet when someone votes (To the best of their ability btw) it gets deleted. Nevertheless. Always gotta be something. Deuces.

-->
@King_8

"If I disliked the topic I wouldn't have accepted the debate lol. Of course I didn't agree. That's why I accepted as Con. Duh. I briefly responded to your main points in R2. Be grateful."

But you can't DO THAT in a debate, it counts as you not responding, and my validation are all true. That is how a mild policy debate would work, you should lose Conduct for that, if anything.

If you disagreed to the terms I meant

-->
@King_8

DDO did not allow swearing, DART does. Excessive swearing loses conduct, not one word. Read the Code of Conduct. Only if I specify anything about swearing, then it would count. Never did, so it assumes the role of the CoC

This is not DDO

-->
@Vader

Yes you do. Swearing is bad conduct. I know from my experience on DDO. I cuss all of the time and people whine about it and scream bad conduct, so there should be no difference for you. Calling someone is a bitch is bad conduct. Telling someone to shut the fuck up is bad conduct. Understand now? You let your emotions get in the way and called my argument bullshit which is rude which = bad conduct.

"If you did not like the topic or did not agree, you should not have accepted this debate. You left my main points uncontested and dropped, that means I get validation"
If I disliked the topic I wouldn't have accepted the debate lol. Of course I didn't agree. That's why I accepted as Con. Duh. I briefly responded to your main points in R2. Be grateful.

"R4 is an overview, summary of the debate, dont make it too long"
Don't worry, wasn't going to make it look anyway. Thanks for the debate

-->
@King_8

If you did not like the topic or did not agree, you should not have accepted this debate. You left my main points uncontested and dropped, that means I get validation

R4 is an overview, summary of the debate, dont make it too long

-->
@King_8

You don't get conduct points off for swearing

-->
@Vader

We'll let the voters decide

-->
@King_8

You HAD to answer those argument I made, even so. The littlest answer would have given you credit. Now you get no credit for whatever you say.

-->
@AKmath

I'm Pro-Lifer basis of god, but it is not my place to force someone to do something I believe

I'm not Pro-Life on the basis of God, I'm Pro-Life on the basis of I don't like people murdering other people.

-->
@Vader

Also please define "Legislatively speaking/legislative debate" please. Await your argument

-->
@King_8

Will do. On it when I get home after school

-->
@Vader

Would you put an overview in your R1 regarding the abortion law in Alabama for the sake of the debate, if you don't mind? I'm sure many people know of the law and know what it's about but I would still like you to put it in your Introduction arguments that way we have something set in stone from the beginning. There also may be people who are unfamiliar with the law and hasn't really looked into it. All you have to do is say what the law is and what Alabama has done, since you are the instigator. I would appreciate if you put it in your R1 by the time you notice my comment. Thanks. Good luck in the debate.

-->
@Alec

I said "You would be correct" lol

-->
@Vader

Is it greek? I know your openly greek.

-->
@Alec

Thank you very much!

-->
@Vader

What does, "Efharisto para poli!" mean?

-->
@Alec

You would be correct

We would debate this

-->
@Vader

The effect of the bill will it would give the pro life law some control in the US and would hopefully spread to other states. Some states have trigger bans. An overturn of Roe V Wade would have more policy diversity in the US. Liberals love diversity. They therefore ought to support an overturn of Roe V Wade to establish the diversity they might support in the nation. Also, what does that foreign text mean? I'm assuming it's Greek.

-->
@Alec

We are discussing the bill and its action and effect, not the actual morality of abortion itself

You could use it as a side point, but it is not a major reference

-->
@Vader

What do you mean by stating that it's a legislative debate?