Instigator / Con

1395

rating

debates

20.45%

won

Topic

#946

Abortion: Constitutional or Not

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 05.22.2019 12:10AM
Last updated date: 06.11.2019 08:42PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

RationalMadman

1709

rating

564

debates

68.17%

won

Description

I believe that Roe v. Wade was not Constitutional for it was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers or at any other time.

Round 1

GeneralGrant

05.22.2019 12:28AM

Con

I am aware that supposedly Roe v. Wade was based on the "right to privacy" I would like CON to explain what the "right to privacy" entails and where it is found in the Constitution.

RationalMadman

05.24.2019 08:08AM

Pro

You are the one saying it directly opposes the spirit and/or specific clauses of the constitution. The BoP is on you, Pro.

Round 2

GeneralGrant

05.24.2019 06:51PM

Con

From Mark Levin's book Men in Black

"Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted by our people nor enacted by our legislators-not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973." Ronald Reagan, 1983

Today, legalized abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy also included a new constitutional right to abortion. If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general "right to privacy" any more than you will find a right to abortion-and for good reason: It's not there. The framers assumed no general right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples-from murder to incest to rape and other crimes

RationalMadman

05.26.2019 05:08PM

Pro

The entire Constitution has two core principles (and these principles are why the left-wing of America hate it while the right-wing love it):

Freedom matters more than harmony and safety.
Survival of the fittest is an absolute, survival of the elected officials is prone to more corruption than survival of the fittest among the electorate.

Both of these things would lead one to be a brutally pro-choice individual.

Let's explore why I conclude this.

The first amendment fundamentally is about the ability to say brutally harsh things no mater who gets offended, even to the point of suicide. It is on a surface level simply about religious expression but even then is about the very same thing as my 'principle 1'.

The second amendment is about enabling the people to have the capacity to kill one another (Since 1982, 74 Percent Of [American] Mass Shooters Obtained Their Guns Legally by Nov 2018). It firstly risks the mass shootings but secondly an argument domestically can end in a dead body much easier when all have guns but the Constitution clearly says it's worth it if the people can fight their government.

The third amendment is about making the people feel as free as their military figures and as entitled to housing and control over areas as their military personnel.

The fourth amendment entitles many dangerous types; such as your local pedophile, gang leader or terrorist, to be entitled to privacy and is the primary thing that Obama's NSA violated as accused by Snowden.

The fifth amendment, much like the fourth, will severely protect a severely dangerous criminal from getting caught and is portrayed as worth that payoff in exchange for the benefit of a relatively free populace of America.

Should I keep going? The entire ethos of the constitution is about brutal freedom even if it ends up with brutal consequences.

Round 3

GeneralGrant

05.29.2019 05:08PM

Con

Forfeited

RationalMadman

05.29.2019 08:19PM

Pro

No doubt about it.

Round 4

GeneralGrant

06.01.2019 08:19PM

Con

Forfeited

RationalMadman

06.01.2019 08:40PM

Pro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4erPGua1O0

Round 5

GeneralGrant

06.04.2019 08:40PM

Con

Forfeited

RationalMadman

06.04.2019 08:42PM

Pro

#10

He gave up

Ramshutu

06.04.2019 09:23PM

Hi RM - thank you for the feedback.

Your opponent said it wasn’t written down in the constitution - this is accurate. You didn’t refute that point; even though I know (given the constitution) that it doesn’t matter. As I don’t bring my knowledge of the constitution to the debtate - his argument was dropped by you, and as you didn’t refute
It - a TR judge must accept it as true.

Your point was unrefuted, but was also terrible - stating that because other unrelated things are accepted - this can be considered too. This is a terrible point that I came close to rejecting on the grounds of inherent warrant - and that if I accept your argument I can’t tell if the resolution is affirmed or not, as most of your argument seemed tangential.

I offered my specific critique of the legal aspects - in order to potentially help you grow as a debater, and realize more reasonable angles of attack.

RationalMadman

06.04.2019 09:15PM

-->

@Ramshutu

Tabula Rasa, my fucking ass.

Dr.Franklin

05.25.2019 12:54AM

-->

@GeneralGrant

OF COURSE it was not constitutional. Nothing is constitutional. the SCOTUS really just votes for whatever party controls the court. Especially now, where after ruining Kavanaugh's life they think the SCOTUS will EVER vote for them. Really stupid

RationalMadman

05.24.2019 08:08AM

Con not Pro********

Ramshutu

06.04.2019 09:10PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con forfeited more than half the rounds. Conduct to con.

Pro clearly specified why abortion wasn’t constitutional. Specifically because it isn’t written in the constitution. This set up a nice easy softball for pro to bat out of the park simply by stating the text of the 9th amendment, and explaining that the role of the Supreme Court is to judge whether particular laws are constitutional or not; he could have simply stated, that the constitution empowered the Supreme Court to determine whether the right to privacy includes the right to Abortion (which they did), this in all respects this is constitution. There were a trillion ways this could have been argued, but Pro decided to take a bizarre approach and point of the rights outlined in the constitution makes abortion legal. This barely makes any sense to me, and certainly doesn’t qualify as a rebuttal of pros point.

However - it want refuted and given how little argument pro actually made - I’m not going to award points for arguments as neither side managed to refute each other, and there was not enough back and forth to be able to come up with any sort of weighting.

Pinkfreud08

06.04.2019 08:59PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

I'd like to start this debate by thanking both opponents,

POOR CONDUCT:

Con ff the majority of the rounds leaving the entire debate abruptly ended. That's poor conduct!

All other points tied, the debate was so short it's hard to judge which argument is better. Not to mention the fact that Con's argument was mostly incoherent.