Your entire argument is based on the logical fallacy of deriving ought from is; you were too focused on showing they are dangerous and using anecdotal evidence to support that claim; however, you still never said why they should not be legal, as pro said alcohol, a very legal substance, holds a lot of the problems you where mentioning, deriving ought from is when there is a substance that contradicts your entire argument is problematic.
Yes drugs are dangerous, but, why should they be illegal is the question, thousands die monthly from car accidents, so based on your logic, cars should also be illegal.
"this is a widely accepted standard of debate, and votes on this site are moderated. Any experienced voter will rule on my favor when it comes to this point."
Did you even read my comment? These debates have no official ruling structure or a way to regulate rules even if it did, so it doesn't matter what everyone does; ruling decisions have to be agreed upon by the participants of the debate, not just inserted by one side. There is no official win condition, but you said what you need to do to win while also saying your opponent needs to do all the work. if this is how you regularly debate, i can see why Sir.Lancelot would think you are so good; not hard to win when you are setting all the rules.
"Got to say, the malice definition is more fair for this debate, since it gives pro a fighting chance. Whereas the legal one only applies in highly oppressive counties." - To pick an incorrect definition to help one side of a debate is an extremely poor debating technique, i don't see why any definition other than the official definition should even be considered.
If abortion = murder and murder requires malice, then you are saying con should argue it is right for women to maliciously kill their child.
I agree your opponent's opening argument holds no weight and can be seen as hearsay; however, "It has been an absolutely disgraceful 1st argument from Pro. Not only did he lie and defame the beautiful religion of Islam but he also gave no evidence for his claims. This is a mockery on his behalf. Absolutely unprofessional, his heart got in the way of a civilized debate and has now turned it into an emotional back and forth" this is hypocritical, within the same breath you are condemning the very acts you to are partaking in by making that statement.
1.)
a.) "No person would be able to love without free will. Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love. " this is a bold claim to make due to free will and
its nature still being debated amongst scholars to this very day, a lot more premises would need to be provided to back such a claim.
b.) " Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love" if this were true, how then can sayings such as "love at first sight" or "I couldn't help falling in
love" exist?
2.)
a.) "Tell me, if you truly love someone, then you would do anything for them correct? And Love contains doing, nice things for others perse. " you are making
the same mistake your opponent made in regard to mistaking correlation for cause, acts of wickedness can be done under the banner of love,
My first issue with your opening argument, the topic of this debate is "What Is Love?" not "what does the bible say love is ?" meaning for you to use the bible as a referencing point you would either have to
1.) mutually agree that the bible can be used as a referencing point
or
2.) establish premises showing why the bible can be used as a referencing point
without either of those, any premises provided referring to the bible simply hold no weight, what if your opponent is not a believer of the bible?
My second issue with your opening argument has been stated by your opponent which is the fact that you describe things attributed to love, however, that would be mistaking correlation with cause to assume because those things usually accompany love they are love or attributes that can be used to describe love, further premises showing such a relationship would be needed.
1.) " Obviously, if I think abortion is not wrong, then the only other option is that I think it is right. This is self-evident, and is implied, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the resolution or not." to assume there can only be two options is a false dichotomy, you can be neutrally law-abiding, meaning you think it's bad if the law says it be, or good if the laws deem it so
2.) " When someone makes a statement that challenges the accepted status quo, and particularly when they are the one to start the argument, then the BoP is on them, regardless of the claim their opponent is defending." such a bold statement that can hold no weight in a free debate setting like this where there are no pre-established rules nor any officials to uphold any sort of rules even if there were rules, it is left to those partaking in the debate to decide, yet once again, you are attempting to establish rules one-sidedly.
3.) "and with premeditated malice” this line is what makes it a very different definition and an easy one for you to use in this debate as it is hard to say a mother is killing their unborn child out of malice
I have 3 main problems with your argument;
1.) "The burden of proof falls squarely on my opponent" false, due to the fact the claim you are defending is "Abortion Is Right" to prove abortion is not wrong still does not show it is right either; that will be deriving "ought" from "is".
2.) "The winning conditions are different for each side, as a result of this burden of proof. My opponent must provide convincing and sufficient evidence to prove his claim. I must refute my opponent’s evidence. Crucially, I do not have to prove the topic wrong – I only have to prove that my opponent has not proved it right." why are you the one to determine how you win the argument? Surely, such a shortcut lacks any form of logic.
3.) I find it interesting that we are communicating in the English language; however, instead of using the official dictionary for the English language (oxford), you use a dictionary where the definition of murder is more stringent, and easier to rebuttal in this argument specifically.
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." - oxford dictionary
Why not wait for a few rounds before throwing around such claims? As the philosopher, David Humes said, there is no principle at work when making an inductive inference, no matter how forceful.
The most effective way I am aware of to debate using logic and not rhetorical ploys (appealing to emotion instead of reason) is to present a valid deductive or a forceful inductive argument; your opponent does the same, e.g. an argument can hold a modus tollens structure (if P then Q, not P therefore not Q) and the opponent has to disprove 1 of the premises because in logic if the conclusion does not follow by logical necessity from the premises (in this case if P then Q is the premise), then the entire argument is flawed and holds no weight, which is why I was expecting to analyse the entire argument to spot the structure and flaws, however, this does not mean your strategy is wrong either as I only attacked the lack of premises due to how solid your starting point was. I hope I was able to make some sense.
I assumed you would present your argument, the opponent would present theirs, and from there, you both pick apart each others argument till only one is remaining.
"All I have to do is prove that abortion is the murder of a human and prove that the murder of a human is wrong." indeed, that is correct, and you do, in fact, do a good job of highlighting points as to why abortion should be seen as the taken of human life; however, you never addressed the second part, "and prove that the murder of a human is wrong", no premises where provided in the support of this claim apart from a brief mention of the law, I am sure you are aware basing what someone should or should not do on a fact (fact being the taking of human life is illegal) is deriving "ought" from "is". You will have to prove that there is an objective moral view, and that view deems the taking of human life as wrong. Morality and how we should live moral lives have been argued by many philosophers, from the likes of Aristotle to Confucian, to Kant or even more recently, peter singer; what insight into morality do you have in regards to an objective standpoint on whether one can take the life of another?
Your entire argument is based on the logical fallacy of deriving ought from is; you were too focused on showing they are dangerous and using anecdotal evidence to support that claim; however, you still never said why they should not be legal, as pro said alcohol, a very legal substance, holds a lot of the problems you where mentioning, deriving ought from is when there is a substance that contradicts your entire argument is problematic.
Yes drugs are dangerous, but, why should they be illegal is the question, thousands die monthly from car accidents, so based on your logic, cars should also be illegal.
"this is a widely accepted standard of debate, and votes on this site are moderated. Any experienced voter will rule on my favor when it comes to this point."
Did you even read my comment? These debates have no official ruling structure or a way to regulate rules even if it did, so it doesn't matter what everyone does; ruling decisions have to be agreed upon by the participants of the debate, not just inserted by one side. There is no official win condition, but you said what you need to do to win while also saying your opponent needs to do all the work. if this is how you regularly debate, i can see why Sir.Lancelot would think you are so good; not hard to win when you are setting all the rules.
"Got to say, the malice definition is more fair for this debate, since it gives pro a fighting chance. Whereas the legal one only applies in highly oppressive counties." - To pick an incorrect definition to help one side of a debate is an extremely poor debating technique, i don't see why any definition other than the official definition should even be considered.
If abortion = murder and murder requires malice, then you are saying con should argue it is right for women to maliciously kill their child.
such a shame, I was curious to see what he could possibly say against Libertarianism.
I agree your opponent's opening argument holds no weight and can be seen as hearsay; however, "It has been an absolutely disgraceful 1st argument from Pro. Not only did he lie and defame the beautiful religion of Islam but he also gave no evidence for his claims. This is a mockery on his behalf. Absolutely unprofessional, his heart got in the way of a civilized debate and has now turned it into an emotional back and forth" this is hypocritical, within the same breath you are condemning the very acts you to are partaking in by making that statement.
1.)
a.) "No person would be able to love without free will. Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love. " this is a bold claim to make due to free will and
its nature still being debated amongst scholars to this very day, a lot more premises would need to be provided to back such a claim.
b.) " Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love" if this were true, how then can sayings such as "love at first sight" or "I couldn't help falling in
love" exist?
2.)
a.) "Tell me, if you truly love someone, then you would do anything for them correct? And Love contains doing, nice things for others perse. " you are making
the same mistake your opponent made in regard to mistaking correlation for cause, acts of wickedness can be done under the banner of love,
My first issue with your opening argument, the topic of this debate is "What Is Love?" not "what does the bible say love is ?" meaning for you to use the bible as a referencing point you would either have to
1.) mutually agree that the bible can be used as a referencing point
or
2.) establish premises showing why the bible can be used as a referencing point
without either of those, any premises provided referring to the bible simply hold no weight, what if your opponent is not a believer of the bible?
My second issue with your opening argument has been stated by your opponent which is the fact that you describe things attributed to love, however, that would be mistaking correlation with cause to assume because those things usually accompany love they are love or attributes that can be used to describe love, further premises showing such a relationship would be needed.
"All drugs should be legalized." This sounds like a very interesting topic, I look forward to the debate.
I'm curious, what was the previous title?
1.) " Obviously, if I think abortion is not wrong, then the only other option is that I think it is right. This is self-evident, and is implied, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the resolution or not." to assume there can only be two options is a false dichotomy, you can be neutrally law-abiding, meaning you think it's bad if the law says it be, or good if the laws deem it so
2.) " When someone makes a statement that challenges the accepted status quo, and particularly when they are the one to start the argument, then the BoP is on them, regardless of the claim their opponent is defending." such a bold statement that can hold no weight in a free debate setting like this where there are no pre-established rules nor any officials to uphold any sort of rules even if there were rules, it is left to those partaking in the debate to decide, yet once again, you are attempting to establish rules one-sidedly.
3.) "and with premeditated malice” this line is what makes it a very different definition and an easy one for you to use in this debate as it is hard to say a mother is killing their unborn child out of malice
I have 3 main problems with your argument;
1.) "The burden of proof falls squarely on my opponent" false, due to the fact the claim you are defending is "Abortion Is Right" to prove abortion is not wrong still does not show it is right either; that will be deriving "ought" from "is".
2.) "The winning conditions are different for each side, as a result of this burden of proof. My opponent must provide convincing and sufficient evidence to prove his claim. I must refute my opponent’s evidence. Crucially, I do not have to prove the topic wrong – I only have to prove that my opponent has not proved it right." why are you the one to determine how you win the argument? Surely, such a shortcut lacks any form of logic.
3.) I find it interesting that we are communicating in the English language; however, instead of using the official dictionary for the English language (oxford), you use a dictionary where the definition of murder is more stringent, and easier to rebuttal in this argument specifically.
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." - oxford dictionary
Sorry, but out of curiosity, how old are you?
Why not wait for a few rounds before throwing around such claims? As the philosopher, David Humes said, there is no principle at work when making an inductive inference, no matter how forceful.
Care to elaborate on why you predict it so?
Could you please elaborate further?
Anytime, I am always happy to help.
The most effective way I am aware of to debate using logic and not rhetorical ploys (appealing to emotion instead of reason) is to present a valid deductive or a forceful inductive argument; your opponent does the same, e.g. an argument can hold a modus tollens structure (if P then Q, not P therefore not Q) and the opponent has to disprove 1 of the premises because in logic if the conclusion does not follow by logical necessity from the premises (in this case if P then Q is the premise), then the entire argument is flawed and holds no weight, which is why I was expecting to analyse the entire argument to spot the structure and flaws, however, this does not mean your strategy is wrong either as I only attacked the lack of premises due to how solid your starting point was. I hope I was able to make some sense.
I assumed you would present your argument, the opponent would present theirs, and from there, you both pick apart each others argument till only one is remaining.
hmm fair enough, i am new here and am not to sure how the argument structure works, i shall keep waiting then.
"All I have to do is prove that abortion is the murder of a human and prove that the murder of a human is wrong." indeed, that is correct, and you do, in fact, do a good job of highlighting points as to why abortion should be seen as the taken of human life; however, you never addressed the second part, "and prove that the murder of a human is wrong", no premises where provided in the support of this claim apart from a brief mention of the law, I am sure you are aware basing what someone should or should not do on a fact (fact being the taking of human life is illegal) is deriving "ought" from "is". You will have to prove that there is an objective moral view, and that view deems the taking of human life as wrong. Morality and how we should live moral lives have been argued by many philosophers, from the likes of Aristotle to Confucian, to Kant or even more recently, peter singer; what insight into morality do you have in regards to an objective standpoint on whether one can take the life of another?