Instigator / Pro
Points: 20

Legislatively Speaking: The Alabama Abortion Law is bad

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
SupaDudz
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 10
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!
Round 1
Published:
Information 

Definition of Legislative
Legislative is this debate is defined by the specific action that regard the policy at hand. This mean the law itself is being debated, not the general concept of abortion itself. While it could be used for an argument itself or a side point, it should not deter the conversation that is happening. It comes from a cause, effect side of a policy input. We are debating the law and itself

"The Alabama law that was signed by the governor last week bans abortion in nearly all cases, with no exceptions for rape or incest, and carries up to a 99-year prison sentence for doctors who perform the procedure."

Definition of Abortion
The definition of abortion will defined in this debate as when a SPERM CELL comes in contact with the EGG to form a baby within the time it happens.
(You can Counter Interp this)

The Arguments

Introduction
Alabama's recent anti abortion bill has been the hot topic of many political news outlets and opened up the topic of policymakers and abortions. Millions of supporters gather to fight government for this bill, and demand a veto of the bill or to get it remove. Policymakers that are not the person carrying out the pregnancy or not apart of this debate have no right to determine whether or not someone should abort or not, forcing Christian beliefs upon non believers, therefore causing this bill to be inherently bad

I. Violates the Constitution 

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The law is a direct contrary to this belief of a freedom of religion and free exercise thereof. This means religion does not need to be exercised nor should be discriminated against. Abortion is an immoral flaw to most Christians and is against their religion to do as such. The law itself violates right to choose to be religion and strictly enforces religion on someone who may not identify themselves a religion persons. Many judicial officers have already determined the law in place by Alabama as "unconstitutional"(1) proving the accurate point that it is a violation of our constitutional right to abort or not abort. These bills threaten Roe v Wade, a constitutional judicial decision that states that there should be access to it, making it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion (2). It violates this amendment and has stood the test of time, it will do the same, and it will deemed unconstitutional

We have a right to be free, and let us choose what we wan't.  If you believe abortion is murder, then the answer is to not go through with it. This will support the lassiez fair system of republicans have, and the freedom to control us is a constitutional right, therefore, the bill breaks this right

II. Implementing a 3rd world policy
America is one the highest regarded countries in the world, with modern technology and itself. The countries like Brazil, Benin, Sudan, and South Korea, among many others, outlaw abortion, but allow rape victims to end their pregnancies. Even these "pro-life" countries and states heavily favor abortion for rape(3). Rape is unholy be religion and it is outright disgusting itself. The policy implements this "3rd world law" into an increasingly progressive side. America should be role models to these nations, not deterring them in the wrong way. This long sentence determined would return us to scale one in our increasingly growing country. We need to regulate the actions of third world countries as many of their antics and tactics are American based

III. Rape goes against the Bible and religious sacriments
Regarding the religious philosophy, rape is considered an adulterous act, a sin in most Christian churches around the state of Alabama itself. If religion was the main motivator behind this bill, they would have accounted a deeper look into the 10 Commandments and looked at the view of these cases. Many religious Republicans like Mitt Romney even claim it is bad and is against it himself saying he's pro life besides the 3 major things (4). A conservative brained man like him should be able to feel the same religion and believe in religion himself, and for him to come out against the law, is a clear sign of knowledge of his sacraments.

The president himself claimed pro-life besides the big 3 on his twitter as well (5). A bipartisan support of the removal is proof of how religion is the main motivator. Only true religious people would be against this bill, for rape and incest are HIGHLY against the bible. If the motive of the bill was to support the bible and religion, better teachings need to be done by Alabama. It seems they are not, as they rank 50th for Education and Child Living Space in the United States

I am awaiting my opponents response...



Published:
Legality
So we will be debating regarding the legalities instead of moralities. Understood. I feel as though you are running from the moral standpoint and the "general concept of abortion" just to make it easier on yourself. Ethics and morals have something to do with why legalities of abortions even exist. Slavery was legal when it shouldn't have been. Same case should go with abortion. 

"The Alabama law that was signed by the governor last week bans abortion in nearly all cases, with no exceptions for rape or incest, and carries up to a 99-year prison sentence for doctors who perform the procedure."
With cases such as rape and incest, the mother can just give up the baby for adoption instead of resorting to end a life. Adoption would be a great solution. Let's be real, most abortions are done out of convenience -- meaning consensual sex, knowing that they will get pregnant. With about 98% of abortions happening due to the fetus not being convenient, why should the mother's convenience be elevated above the baby's opportunity in life and to a full life? (1)

Definition of Abortion
The definition of abortion will defined in this debate as when a SPERM CELL comes in contact with the EGG to form a baby within the time it happens.
False. That's the definition of conception. (2)

My argument - Why the Alabama law is legislatively right
Simple. Scientifically, life begins at conception. A human zygote is formed. (3) Ending that life is immoral, so the law that Alabama has done is right.

If the case that a woman's health is at risk occurs, then an abortion does not have to be the only option to save a mother's life. (4) Any treatment that is given to save a woman's life that results in the death of an unborn child is not a true abortion, since the primary purpose of the treatment is to save a life, not take it. These cases are very rare; it is possible that a surgeon could delay treatment of the mother until the fetus reaches a certain stage of development where it is possible to save both lives. (5)

Abortion inherently is not morally acceptable. It is a planned taking of a life, due to selfish and convenient reasons (most of the time). Therefore, it is not bio-ethical or ethical. Also, no moral principles seem to govern how, when, or why abortions are performed. This is why I think it should be considered unlawful because it defies ethics. Under ethical and moral reasons it is needless killing, and therefore should be considered murder under the law.

I won't include religion in my arguments. Await a response. 

Sources:
Round 2
Published:
NOTE: This is not a moral debate because this is a policy put into place about illegalizing abortion, which means we will discuss the policy itself and it's links and effects. It is different from the morallity, and is not a short way out. I am PRO-LIFE morally, but I think gov should not have business in a human's belief 
Responses

If we do simply math here, you point will be proven fallaciously stupid. In 2015, around 638k abortions are done per year in the USA and that numbers was increasing as many sources confirm. If only 2% of abortion cases are based om this, that means around 12,760 people that are raped and have abortions. While in the size of 638k, it may not seems big enough of a number to you, for a normal person without verifying via eye source, it would be a high number that would, and the number is still a 5 digit number, meaning that is happens and that is there to stay and the numbers will rise. 12k is a large number for a serious number.

Many states do not have as flexible laws with adaption and such. After a pregnancy and such, it is considered the women must stay in the hospital for around 2 days before going and leaving. Some states where a Safehaven Policy occurs, you can give up that baby within 24hrs of birth. The most lenient state on this policy is Illinois, with a full month of this. But despite that, Illinois is a crippling state with huge sums of debt.

Life would be hard, the child could be exposed to negative conditions, and develop anxiety, depression, etc. They are at a higher risk of all these negative effects, especially if the women itself is having these same thoughts. This is multiplied with rape

Definition
The act of having sex is not the life itself, it is creating it. It is as an embryo, which the stage of life, a cell itself. You define conception as the definition and that is not true. Conception is the act of making it. You can not make a cake and call the cake batter cake. It is not a cake itself. Since you used Merriam Webster, here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
-------------------------------------------------
I. All of my round 1 arguments are left uncontested by the CON in the debate. This means that I should win these arguments and have full validation of them. There was no evidence of these arguments brought up, nor was there any countering of mine. I should be preferred over the CON, as the CON can not bring up arguments they missed in the debate in the rebuttals, as NO NEW arguments have been made. Here are my extensions for each one that should be guarded and protected and sealed until the end of round. No defense was added, and they give up the defense and my main points

Unconstitutional- An unconstitutional law should not be in place and a law that violates an amendment should be repealed, and the new act meets all this criteria to be voided by the Supreme Court and the law forces a religion onto others, a CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
3rd world policy- A third world policy should not be in a country where we are currently progressions. Most countries have rules in place for rape, incest, and such. We are taking a step back in society, causing us to be a "joke" to other countries when we should be a role model for these countries
Bible against rape-The bible was the main reason on why abortion was banned and these limits in place. The law is hypocritical to the Bible, as the bible is against adultery and such, therefore causing rape and violence to be against the bible, a bigger sin that is less debated

All arguments to be extended and preferred by a judge and to be weighed in when a vote is castes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Other Treatments?


Simple. Scientifically, life begins at conception. A human zygote is formed. (3) Ending that life is immoral, so the law that Alabama has done is right.
Read the counter definition and supporting why yours is blatantly wrong, I said in debate
If the case that a woman's health is at risk occurs, then an abortion does not have to be the only option to save a mother's life. (4) Any treatment that is given to save a woman's life that results in the death of an unborn child is not a true abortion, since the primary purpose of the treatment is to save a life, not take it. These cases are very rare; it is possible that a surgeon could delay treatment of the mother until the fetus reaches a certain stage of development where it is possible to save both lives. (5)
Are there any examples of this you could provide in the treatments

These cases are EXTREMELY RARE, even rarer that a rape and incest with abortions as well. Treatment can not slow the birth of the baby down. It is physically acceptable 
Abortion inherently is not morally acceptable. It is a planned taking of a life, due to selfish and convenient reasons (most of the time). Therefore, it is not bio-ethical or ethical. Also, no moral principles seem to govern how, when, or why abortions are performed. This is why I think it should be considered unlawful because it defies ethics. Under ethical and moral reasons it is needless killing, and therefore should be considered murder under the law.

Technicality over Truth in this case. The technicality is that we have a right to choose what we do under the constitution and what we can do in the US. This violates the amendments made by our great founding fathers, and that technicality should outweigh any of your truth arguments that are mentioned in the debate as well. Even so, the truth is too, we have a freedom of religion, and this bill forces religion onto non believers, which you conveniently left uncontested 




Published:
This is not a moral debate because this is a policy put into place about illegalizing abortion
I'm afraid the moral aspect has to come to play in this discussion. Again, you are running from that basic fact to try and make it easier for yourself. As I said before, the act of abortion defies ethics, which is the very reason why Alabama established that law, rightfully so. There's nothing else to really talk about regarding the "cause" of abortion and the "effect" (law in Alabama). Cause = immoral, unethical, wrong. Effect = Abortion being illegal. 

Life would be hard, the child could be exposed to negative conditions, and develop anxiety, depression, etc.
Life is hard period. Do you know how many people have anxiety, depression and many other things? Do you think you should have gotten aborted to avoid experiencing stress and depression? Even celebrities grew up rough and experienced bad things from the beginning. No matter how successful you are, you are still human. Everyone has their moments. Now as for the "negative conditions" part, again the baby should just be adopted into a much better condition and live a better life. 

Definition
You are making this more difficult than it actually is.
1) You stated the definition of conception (claiming it was abortion) when it is not abortion in which I debunked.
2) You're now saying "The act of sex is this" and this cake analogy and all of these other things unnecessarily. You aren't rebutting anything I am saying, what you're doing is saying random things and somehow interpreting what I said. I said conception means conception. You are the one with the misconception of the definition of it being "abortion"
3) You have yet to even define abortion. Your link defines it, but it does not support your previous explanation. 
4) The definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. Now that we got that established, let's move on. 

Your points: l., ll., and lll. were disregarded for one simple reason, they were steering off topic. Majority of your arguments were based on religion in all three of your points. You don't have to be a Christian to find abortion immoral. I'm sure Atheists find abortion immoral. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with, nor correlate with outlawing abortion. "Women's rights" would have been more appropriate. Even so, the point of it all is to prevent killing. Would you support murder? If not, then why support abortion when a life is being taken?

as NO NEW arguments have been made
False. I made my opening argument in the bottom half of my R1.

Read the counter definition and supporting why yours is blatantly wrong, I said in debate
Rebutted. 

Technicality over Truth in this case. The technicality is that we have a right to choose what we do under the constitution and what we can do in the US. 
Would you support murder being legal? 

Even so, the truth is too, we have a freedom of religion, and this bill forces religion onto non believers, which you conveniently left uncontested. 
So are you religious or not? I can't tell. Like I said earlier, even non believers who have common sense would find abortion immoral. I left it uncontested because as I said in my previous round, I will not use religion in my arguments. 
Round 3
Published:
I'm afraid the moral aspect has to come to play in this discussion. Again, you are running from that basic fact to try and make it easier for yourself. As I said before, the act of abortion defies ethics, which is the very reason why Alabama established that law, rightfully so. There's nothing else to really talk about regarding the "cause" of abortion and the "effect" (law in Alabama). Cause = immoral, unethical, wrong. Effect = Abortion being illegal. 
There is a difference between moral and legally. Moral debates to happen, but the primary focus of this debate was looking at this from a legal prespective, which was the topic of the debate. If you did not want to debate this legally, you did not have to. You turned this into a moral debate, going off topic of the primary topic of this. You should not whine and complain, and try to make the best out of an argument
=======================
1) You stated the definition of conception (claiming it was abortion) when it is not abortion in which I debunked.
False. I did not say that. I said conception was the ACT of conceiving. The proccess and the start of the formation of cells is the formation of life, which is the perimeters of the debate
2) You're now saying "The act of sex is this" and this cake analogy and all of these other things unnecessarily. You aren't rebutting anything I am saying, what you're doing is saying random things and somehow interpreting what I said. I said conception means conception. You are the one with the misconception of the definition of it being "abortion"
I'm giving an example to help clarify this issue you provided
3) You have yet to even define abortion. Your link defines it, but it does not support your previous explanation. 
It was the first round of the debate is what I defined it as... what?
=================
Your points: l., ll., and lll. were disregarded for one simple reason, they were steering off topic. Majority of your arguments were based on religion in all three of your points. You don't have to be a Christian to find abortion immoral. I'm sure Atheists find abortion immoral. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with, nor correlate with outlawing abortion. "Women's rights" would have been more appropriate. Even so, the point of it all is to prevent killing. Would you support murder? If not, then why support abortion when a life is being taken?
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 conceded the arguments that it is unconstitutional. These are points that need to be answered in the debate and are disregarded and brush away. You should not take part in a debate if you can not accept the terms of legally and such. This is not a K debate, and you are forcing it as one.

You also can not assume atheists are against abortion, you have to use factual evidence to support this claim. You have done none of these things

This should not count judges, he conceded the points and I should get validation and pure of it
==================================
False. I made my opening argument in the bottom half of my R1.
Not to any of my points made in R1, which means you lose technically
Would you support murder being legal? 
I support the ability to choose to practice a religion or once. Various people define abortion differently, so it could or could not be murder in this case depending
So are you religious or not? I can't tell. Like I said earlier, even non believers who have common sense would find abortion immoral. I left it uncontested because as I said in my previous round, I will not use religion in my arguments. 
You literally have no evidence to support this. I never talk about the IN DEPTH of religion, I specifically talk about freedom of practicing a RELIGION! I have not gone into the flaws of religion and such, a false assumption

My opponent has based this rebuttal or assumptions and various degrees of lying and non responding to the 3 arguments I made in this debate that should be answered, while this is the last rebuttal before closing statements. The debate rules say that disregarded or conceded arguments are true. You can not just say bullshit after I point it out! Therefore you shall not get credit

VOTE PRO

NOTE: R4 is not rebuttals, but small closing statements about the matter and debate with an overview



Published:
You turned this into a moral debate, going off topic of the primary topic of this. You should not whine and complain, and try to make the best out of an argument.
Well legality is the cause of morals, so morality at some point has to be included. For morality/ethics you said, "While it could be used for an argument itself or a side point, it should not deter the conversation that is happening." that's exactly what's happening. Keep in mind, I am talking about legality as well and I am trying my best to stick to it. I am not whining and complaining. 

False. I did not say that. I said conception was the ACT of conceiving. The proccess and the start of the formation of cells is the formation of life, which is the perimeters of the debate
Unfortunately, you still make no sense and you are adding things to the mix making it more and more difficult. You said, "The definition of abortion will defined in this debate as when a SPERM CELL comes in contact with the EGG to form a baby within the time it happens." which was wrong in all accounts. If you are going to have an abortion debate, at least make sure you define it correctly. 

It was the first round of the debate is what I defined it as... what?
That was not the definition of abortion at all.

You conceded the arguments that it is unconstitutional. These are points that need to be answered in the debate and are disregarded and brush away. You should not take part in a debate if you can not accept the terms of legally and such. This is not a K debate, and you are forcing it as one.
Well I briefly responded to your arguments last round, you should be grateful.

 Various people define abortion differently.
If that's the case, then that is not right. Abortion only has one definition. 

 You can not just say bullshit after I point it out! 
You said bullshit. Looks like I get the conduct point! :D
Round 4
Published:
Concluding Statements and Final Thoughts

My opponent practically concedes all my arguments and points made in the argument, and brings them up again, causing a conduct violation. It is clear that my opponent does not know the format of the debate. They countered my arguments with feelings, and facts do not care about your feelings in this sense. 

-My arguments ARE NOT contested and are left unanswered. I should get full validation over these arguments
-My opponent just whines and complains about the debate, when he did not need to accept it in the first place
-You didn't respond to any points and made stupid, illogical arguments
-Defines conception as abortion, which is false and not even the same thing
-You never proved that 

Overview
My opponent did not counter with anything valid and dropped all my points in the rounds, being scraped to the bear bones

These are the concluding statements

VOTE PRO
Published:
You are the one who defined conception as abortion lol I literally proved how you did time and time again. It's in the debate. Anyone with common sense will read it and know that you did not use the right definition for abortion, when that's the definition of conception.

My opponent swore. He said "bullshit". That's bad conduct. I deserve the conduct point
Added:
--> @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
*******************************************************************
#44
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
Report my vote and if it gets removed I'll do a revote.
#43
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
You have to give a reasoning why arguments didn't convince
Instigator
#42
Added:
--> @Ragnar
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************
#41
Added:
--> @blamonkey, @Dr.Franklin, @SupaDudz
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!
Contender
#40
Added:
--> @King_8
I KNOW THAT I TOLD YOU ALREADY
#39
Added:
--> @King_8, @SupaDudz
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.
#38
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Yea, I knew that was bad so I didn't respond to that. I was just refering to underlined text
Instigator
#37
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
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.
#36
Added:
--> @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
#35
Added:
--> @Ragnar
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.
Instigator
#34
Added:
--> @Speedrace, @Ragnar
Thank you both for voting
Instigator
#33
Added:
--> @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
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @King_8
No you called me one in the comments
#31
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
I never called you a bitch in a debate though so lol
Contender
#30
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This is pretty much open and shut: pro isn’t really making a moralistic or value judgement on abortion, but is analyzing the legislative validity of abortion.
The key arguments that show the law is legislatively bad - that it inherently violates the constitution, and that it implements third world policy due to lack of key exemptions are strong cases to support his burden - and these are not answered by con at any point.
Con primarily makes a moralistic argument concerning abortion, and spends a good deal of his position arguing definitions without a clear goal in mind- it doesn’t seem like any of the definitional arguments helped him support his side, and more seemed an attempt to simply argue against something con said.
Aside from this, cons arguments relating to law and morality are not sufficient to uphold his part of the resolution. A very generic argument about morality being required to support laws is not enough on its own to uphold his position. It’s immoral to cheat on your Wife/GF - but that on its own I not sufficient to make it illegal. Con had to construct a case to show why it’s illegal.
Worse, con repeatedly asked pro to justify whether Murder should be legal. For me, the issue I have here is that con is characterizing abortion as murder - the staying murder is currently illegal; this implicitly makes his case more confusing; and raises more question that he needs to answer : why is another law needed?
Con didn’t appear to specifically stick to the topic, and other than the fairly generic arguments made, did not warrant his portion of the resolution. Con had to show that the legislation was valid in reference to laws of the land, or serves some other purpose: he did not do so and pro showed the reverse.
Thus, arguments must go to pro.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I usually refrain from awarding points on the topic of abortion, due to my strong bias (in short: I’m opposed to slavery). This debate looking at the legal merits apart from any moral implications, falls outside the majority of my bias.
Arguments (pro):
Simply put, his legal case (I. Violates the Constitution) went wholly uncontested. Since both debaters agreed to a debate on legality rather than ethics, con’s counter case of morals (basically sidestepping the topic with an attempted K) is actually off topic to be disregarded. I do agree with con dropping pro’s third point about the bible, as that is the same as con’s whole off topic case...
Sources (pro):
Some real information tied to the debate topic vs off topic propaganda pages...
Pro used the LATimes to show that the law was outright legally ruled unconstitutional. A couple quotes from this by itself could have won the whole debate.
S&G (con):
The coherence of pro’s case was initially damaged by a hilariously bad definition for abortion. This is easily forgiven, but it was caught by con, and is the one place I can give some credit for effort.
I should also point out that pro at times randomly went into all caps for extended amounts (use bold or italics, a word here and there, but not any whole sentences). I did not spot such mistakes within con’s case.
Conduct (tie):
Terribly off topic arguments are bad arguments, questionable conduct, but not in itself enough justification to award this. A single profanity (one not even aimed at anyone) is also not a conduct violation.
#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:
This started out good, but it became just...sad.
Arguments
First of all, Pro, you used the definition of conception as the definition of abortion. This was quite clearly a glaring mistake, and I have no idea how you missed that.
"The definition of abortion will defined in this debate as when a SPERM CELL comes in contact with the EGG to form a baby within the time it happens."
That's what conception is. This is the definition of abortion:
"the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"
Anyway, on to the points.
Con did not respond to any of Pro's original arguments. That's 3 points for Pro. Con's only argument is on morals, not legalities, which was not allowed, and I am ignoring it because of that.
Pro has all of the points and gets arguments.
Conduct
Conduct for both parties became petulant and rude. However, I'm tieing it because it was equally bad on both sides.