Legislatively Speaking: The Alabama Abortion Law is bad
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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!
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.
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.
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.
*******************************************************************
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
*******************************************************************
Report my vote and if it gets removed I'll do a revote.
You have to give a reasoning why arguments didn't convince
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
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!
I KNOW THAT I TOLD YOU ALREADY
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.
Yea, I knew that was bad so I didn't respond to that. I was just refering to underlined text
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.
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
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.
Thank you both for voting
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
No you called me one in the comments
I never called you a bitch in a debate though so lol
Lmao I honestly don't care I only pointed it out so people would give me the conduct point
You called me a stupid little bitch and your complaining over the word "bullshit".WOW
"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
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
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
"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"
But calling someone's points "bullshit" which is directed towards their argument is okay. Interesting
Cause it was direct toward someone.
If it isn't specifically direct, then they will allow it.
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.
"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
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
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
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
You don't get conduct points off for swearing
We'll let the voters decide
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.
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.
Also please define "Legislatively speaking/legislative debate" please. Await your argument
Will do. On it when I get home after school
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.
I said "You would be correct" lol
Is it greek? I know your openly greek.
Thank you very much!
What does, "Efharisto para poli!" mean?
You would be correct
We would debate this
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.
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
What do you mean by stating that it's a legislative debate?