In future, please be careful to mark quoted material to differentiate it from your own work. An in line quotation usually just calls for double quotation marks.
Large chunks of text, I would suggest the quotation tool. ctrl+bracket to increase the levels within it.
"Probably" would greatly lessen his BoP, and "certainly" would likewise increase it. As is, I would say there can still be some measure of doubt, but as the instigator he still needs a strong case.
URL shorteners majorly backfired in con's R2 (all broken).
If anyone is curious, I tracked down the couple which were quoted:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/how-black-lives-matter-changed-way-americans-fight
https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/hrdef-the-black-lives-matter-movement-and-the-workplace.html
I have never considered users citing PMs as evidence in debates.
By citing them, they intuitively seem to become a source (on a debate about sources no less). At the same time, it would be a tactic that could easily get out of control (such as were it to become half or more of someone's arguments... Not to say that exact amount should be codified, merely calling back to a writing rule of thumb about quotes vs your own material).
It's definitely not the same as plagiarism where someone copy/pastes someone else's argument on a given topic instead of writing their own (which I would still have a problem with, even with quotation marks and a link).
To me it most closely resembles anecdotal evidence. For example, on a recent debate I used my girlfriend's mixed heritage to make a point (which I then backed up with data on how common such cases are).
There is also the problem that such things could get out of control, with multiple authors ganging up on one.
It's a complex enough matter that it may warrant a MEEP question, to determine if such things merit a strong conduct penalty in future.
...
Personally, on this debate I am likely to dismiss it from consideration when voting, instead depending on the strength of what each wrote. (I can't say for sure, as I've only looked closely at a single contention in a single argument).
I think I already mentioned the key weakness of being absolutely all or absolutely nothing. Con without a doubt did a much better job of leveraging that (pro should have used more focus on how rare late term abortions are, and the reason for full term if they ever occur definitely should have been in there); I did not notice nearly emphasis from pro on logical exceptions (I wish it did not play in, but rape for starters, threat to the mothers life; I think I've gotten a pro-lifer to oppose cancer treatments before due to the tumor being somewhat comparable to a fetus).
I did not realize this was only a 2-round debate until midway through con's R2. I do generally suggest more rounds with less characters, which mitigates the contender advantage as voters get a better sense for how the debate is going as the arguments get more flushed out.
I already swore off voting, but were I to vote, it would be arguments to con, and all other points tied.
A/2 OPENING:
Well played, particularly the BoP reminder talk of doubt. As a data scientist, even with a low confidence remaining, the number leaves a heavy impact.
A/2 “1. Life Starts at Birth”
Well played. I find the reference to pro being ok with killing people in their sleep a comedic stretch, but that is about the only weakness I see here. Which is so much of why I personally focus on the people angle, giving no importance to the fact of human cells. I would like to think what you've done here is how I would argue your side of this debate.
A/2 “Abortion is NOT murder”
Had to look back, because I missed the chicken egg argument above. I think I already gave some commentary on this seperately. Anyway, good defenses on why we're ok with eating chickens at any level of development. ... This does remind me of the meat is murder claims and why they're invalid, however that is not directly connected to this debate, and I truly do understand the utility of the appeal.
A/2 “#1: Abortion lowered crime”
Skimming a bit... Good defense of the previous source, as the information was not challenged, merely the speaker.
A/2 #2 Women in the workplace
Nice bit with the inconsistent use. You can pretty much insert my usual stuff against abstinence only education here.
A/2 #3 Economy
Very nice defense of India, and overpopulation not being a true problem for the world yet. ... neatly I think my slavery argument started related to insisted need for population growth, some politician was insisting it was peoples duty to have kids to bolster the economy, which goes directly against Kantian ethics I was studying around then, that people should not be treated as a means by as an end onto themselves.
A/2 “Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions”
A fine defense. Not the best source, but I'm not even sure what source it is challenging so, *shrug*.
A/2 “UN Report”
Very good challenger to what was represented as being inside the source!
CONCLUSION:
I do really like seeing when these hold true between rounds.
I do like the opening syllogism. Even while it intuitively highlights the problem of this debate excluding the middle ground forcing each side to be all or nothing. As con previously said "By conception, it is already debatably murder, but by the 9th month, it is definitely so."
Decent job with life begins at birth, but I'm gain reminded of the above quote (and I say this as someone who trusts late-term abortions are going to be for strong reasons, not merely 'nah, changed my mind').
The murder point was handled well. I suggest in future moving away from the not human focus, to the not a person focus. Intellectually, a cat is closer to a person than a fetus at any point in development; while we should embrace animal cruelty laws, we don't give people the electric chair for first degree murder of a cat (they probably deserve the electric chair, but the crime would be a different one).
"#1: Abortion lowered crime"
"The study conducted by Donohue-Levitt isolated variables to determine drop for what happened in 1992, which was different than today."
Sadly, most people are not going to understand fancy words like "variables." Still to me it's a good defense of the study. As for the counter study, a short quote from it would greatly improve the description of why it's wrong. Plus I think you may have been mistyped, looking back I think it was a Christian fundamentalist source, insisting on religious law; as opposed to an anti-Christian source.
"#2 Women in the workplace"
Very well done defense against using adoption as birth control.
I will note on sourcing, that even with that link pointing to specific lines of text, it still could have been displayed with minimal character usage.
A displayed "http://www.adopt.org/faqs" taking just the character count from that, could still point to: http://www.adopt.org/faqs#:~:text=The%20wait%20is%20typically%20between,from%20the%20time%20of%20placement.
"#3 Economy"
Good comparison to India.
Weirdly I've seen this type of thing either spiral into you being called a racist for saying India is not the ideal we should aspire up to, or the person claiming race plays a role in the bad result. Neither of which I expect from con on this one.
"#4 Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions"
A strong defense, which would have benefited from better sourcing (even just pointing to a specific part of that page). Granted, I tend to point people to lengthy PDF's from the UN and WHO, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.
A key thing I will say, is that con by bringing in the millions of annual murders, is pretty much offering an excuse for anyone already biased to vote their bias instead of the debate as it played out (not pointing any fingers, I've just been on these sites too long that I've seen it... Heck my fetus as money debate, at certain times would have garnered several votes against me for opposing the pro-life side on that).
"#5 UN Report"
I looked back, and had difficulty differentiating which link was the report as opposed to pictures from the report (which is cool to see, but maybe label the links as that instead of just as whatever URL shortener?). Which is funny, since I suspect I've been using the report in question for a few debates now.
"CON proposes a complete ban without exceptions" is something to focus on more. I feel con has been doing a really good job of highlighting that your side is allowing them without cause even at 9 months, and you've kinda been just taking it... Ah the source you use here, a quote from it would make it pop (and allow people like me to quickly find the relevant section within it; searching for "14" I could not find the explanation of why those were occurring to verify it).
"Closing"
"As established, abortion is impossible to argue as murder" this isn't really true, as con has been arguing just that (successful or not, it risks harming your case's credibility to deny what people have clearly seen). This is a little worse given that con has put some focus on fully viable ones being on the chopping block (even if that does not actually happen, it's still an effective emotional tug on the heartstrings). The "illegal abortions would still be rampant" is of course a great point, but it feels a bit buried (pretty sure it came up earlier, but it is not standing out).
Haven't read it yet. I only glanced at what you had due to a report that you were having trouble posting. I'll let you know what I think of it when the debate concludes.
Ok, I had to look up the chicken part. I'm coincidentally using a different chicken analogy in my own abortion debate right now.
Regarding yours, I would say the weakness is that it only works if someone has not made the human cell clusters are human life argument (which these days is almost assured). If they've made that, it leaves the thing in a grey area, still susceptible to pull from the potential millions of deaths abortion might represent.
At the risk of preaching, I hold to the belief that human beings are unique for our minds. From this perspective, the mere fact of measurable human cells does not matter so much unless it's a person. A fire in a fertility clinic with a daycare, save the children, not the millions of frozen embryos (saving the office cat over the embryos, would be debatable). Heck, if we find a way to transfer minds from dying humans into non-human bodies, I would view the intentional destruction of such as murder, in a way that most pro-life arguments would not.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It's an understandable mistake without "alike" defined, but the description clarified legalities, and con's arguments of non-alike traits does not seem to have been weighed properly.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
---
Intelligence_06
6 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: PRO successfully argued that P and P are alike, and CON did not argue what he is to argue: Neither of them is alike in any way, which is significantly harder. In my eyes, PRO wins the arguments. CON only pointed out the differences between the two but otherwise, they are still alike.
Conduct: Forfeit.
Sources: Neither has any, tie
S&G: tie. Both side readable
> "by the way this debate is going I fear Ragnar supporting euthanizing babies lol"
I'm writing my rebuttals. If you would like I can include a side note of that (probably something something, Spartans are awesomeness, something something).
Way back on DDO I once started prepping a troll debate on fourth trimester abortions, with supporting evidence for the need to eliminate overgrown human cell clusters many years after they technically exited the womb but had since failed to intellectually develop into human beings (when doing a poll, I literally cited my two ex-brothers). ... Ok, I had to look it up, and I forgot how gloriously stupid the comments got!
https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-fourth-trimester-abortion-be-legal
R1-pro:
Strong opening statement from pro. I will say that it would not hold up as well for late-term abortions, but that is such a small percentage that it's not a major problem.
Stating the only thing against abortion "Some people are offended by it" is bound to be problematic, it kind of invites con to mention the Poisoning The Well fallacy, so long as he can name any reason other than being offended (I've seen plenty who do not raise it beyond that, so I do understand the statement).
"The Effect of Abortion on Crime"
Really good data here.
"Women in the workforce"
A good start, but it feels like it's leading into something that does not deliver. It kinda belongs as a subheading to the next point.
"Abortion’s effect on the Economy and Lower Class"
Ties nicely into explaining the crime rate data.
"Effects of a ban on abortion"
This should have been point one (after your introduction). Putting it late into the round, is burying the lead; worse, it risks people skimming past it.
"Closing Remarks"
It right away cites a disproven reason for abortion bans. That kind of thing could have been its own contention, with a list of them, and the refusal of pro-life states to change in spite of being proven wrong in their excuses (general pro-life states avoids risk of targeting your opponent directly, even while implicitly attacking their position).
Conduct: Not nearly enough to be penalized, but it's usually best to in R1 as the instigator to not overly frame someone else's case. Even while I advise how to use guilt by association, such should be done carefully to not border on Ad Hominems. Your R1 as instigator should primarily be why you're right, less so why the other person is wrong.
---
R1-con:
“THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION”
The walk through the stages of pregnancy, is something I think it missing on most of these debates. I nearly did it on my current debate (before seeing it here), but the character limit was getting tight already. I will outright suggest this (well maybe a less one sided one) as something in the description on these.
Also the framing of pro’s case for late term abortions, was smart (gets less flack from me as this is in response). It does highlight one problem on this debate, in that these debates should generally be over when the cutoff occurs, as opposed to all or nothing.
“ABORTIONS DO NOT KILL”
I always dislike graphic descriptions, but I do understand it as a tactic.
“LIFE AT CONCEPTION”
I admit I did not understand the phrasing: “PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
“CRIME & CONDITIONS”
Con does a very good reframing (sorry that I keep using that term) of this contention, pointing blame at bad parents (who pro argues should thus not be forced to become parents). He has a counter proposal, which is a little besides the point about these debates, but well played. The problem with this type of counter proposal, is it is not guaranteed to happen either way. I admit I actually make about the same one regardless of if abortion should be legal or not… Effectively, I argue that if abortion is to be illegal, first there should be full support in place provided by the government for expectant mothers and their future children, to take away much of the current need for abortion.
“ECONOMIC BENEFIT”
Well played counter that those children would be consumers. It is an argument that usually stands on thin ice, yet one that is usually unopposed for some reason.
“ABORTIONS ARE SAFE (UNLESS DONE ILLEGALLY):”
“Advertising the ability to efficiently kill children may not be the best way to advocate for abortion in terms of ethics.” Very well said. The safety is better as a defense point when deluded people start citing long disproven things, but standing on its own without being a response to that, it’s very vulnerable to this type of counter.
The rest of his counter was less good, I even glanced into one of the sources… Curious if pro will catch the faults or not. If not, them standing uncontested would greatly hurt the affirmative case.
“NICARAGUA AND THE UN REPORT”
A bit of a deflection, but a wise one. Again, pointing back to the pro case being the opposite of this messed up place, which also gets into an ugly area.
Sources: Skimming over the sources, they tended to be openly agenda driven ones. Within such sources, they often call to better sources, which are needless to say, better to use. I don't know yet if pro weaponizes them properly, but these sources would be easy to flip to bolster his claims about the pro-life stance is based on "-Some people are offended by it (for moral/religious reasons pertaining to their feelings)"
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Seriously, this could be called a two round forfeit, but that is pretty far from a full forfeiture.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
54 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
full forfeit, and pro sources were not that good
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
18 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
pro's case is too difficult; it's too hard to argue that during all of pregnancy that the baby is not alive. If pro could even provide the shred of doubt before 9 weeks (and thus hard to provide any responses from the fetus), then he could make a break through in con's case. Alas, he could not.
Also you should know that numbered links [1, 2, etc], take even less of the character limit than URL shorteners. Plus just by hovering the mouse, someone can see what it is pointing to. ... I still generally suggest a list at the end, but I'd be lying if I said I never condensed something down in there.
This is the greatest use of the comment section I can remember.
It's so nice to see the debaters having a genuine discussion with each other.
Oh and FYI, if you both want the debate may be changed to rated.
...
Regarding voting: You can expect me to read this debate. However, I will probably not be moved out of the tied range, given that it looks like a great job from both combined with my own bias which extends the tied range.
I've long considered one of my debates to be the best abortion debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024/should-abortion-be-made-illegal), but this one might unseat it.
I'm going to have more time for the next few days, and in dire need of a distraction, so happy to accept this direct challenge.
If you would like anything plugged into the full description, please let me know. A good example of this would be any important definitions (I'll probably agree to anything that isn't an extreme case of cherry-picking).
To avoid any confusion as you draft your R1: I presume your side of this debate is that abortion should be generally banned, with an exception for things that are very likely to kill the mother in the short-term (like ectopic pregnancy).
>> "Yet, a moderator, in a vote, declared agreement with a debater that sources are not absolutely necessary to use in debate. I am purposefully not providing the link nor the direct quote by a moderator to both protect that moderator and because voting on this debate should not consider outside content, specifically because, according to the Voting Policy, “…reasoning that stems from already-placed votes…” should not be considered for voting. The Pro arguments for this debate will not further reference the commentary referenced above, but will prove by reference to sourcing demonstrating the soundness of the voting policy with regard to sourcing."
For reference, the vote in question may be found at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2173/vote_links/5467
Yes, the debate was able to be voted on in spite of con having no sources. The result ended up being sources to pro, arguments to con, all other points tied.
And to quote the sources decision: "I agree with con that sources are not absolutely necessary. That said, pro still put the work into his research, and gets credit for that..." it of course went on to point out a specific source, and describe impacts.
The above may or may not be used as evidence within this debate. If it is not cited by either debater, votes based upon it will of course have to be removed. If it is used as evidence within the debate, it contextually is not an already placed vote on this debate, so is fair game as evidence (the policy is contextually referring to the problem of piggy-back voting within any given debate). I should however mention that I am not infallible. I've had votes deleted for falling short of the standard.
Temping... However, the semantic rabbit hole that there may be A debate they are required on, even if not every debate, is something I do not wish to explore.
King Leopold II was not from any of the Americas, and died well over a hundred years ago. Yet he seems to be who you believe the average white American is today.
For each of you, when citing any important facts, please provide a link for verification.
As an example, re-education camps in China: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063
Or China trying to improve it's justice system: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53666557
As always, here's a handy guide for debate formatting with a few argument tips:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I might get around to this, but I can't promise as I have to try to recover from a terrible weekend, and knock out some important job application activities.
Thank you for the vote. And yeah, that first sentence when compared with the debate content (no suggestion of it offering any improvement for anyone on any metric), it really did sow the seeds of destruction.
Thank you for the vote. It was hands down the most Boss vote I have seen, in that it made multiple references to Like A Boss, to which all other votes fall short.
I don't think I'll pull Like A Boss every time someone has a Should Proposal, but when they refuse to raise it above purely magical thinking, I might make it by go to superior counter proposal.
I like having an upvote feature, but would be against a downvote feature.
Probably a misclick.
In future, please be careful to mark quoted material to differentiate it from your own work. An in line quotation usually just calls for double quotation marks.
Large chunks of text, I would suggest the quotation tool. ctrl+bracket to increase the levels within it.
"Probably" would greatly lessen his BoP, and "certainly" would likewise increase it. As is, I would say there can still be some measure of doubt, but as the instigator he still needs a strong case.
I'm confused, but have fun!
Hard to make the argument that there's not enough characters, without using more characters.
👆🏻 92 characters.
Richard IV once fought 10,000 Turks, while armed with only a fruit knife.
Very good first round. I'll have to give this another look later.
Remind me to look over your resume for you.
None of us are immune to the pitfalls of virtue ethics, as much as the world would be a better place if we were.
URL shorteners majorly backfired in con's R2 (all broken).
If anyone is curious, I tracked down the couple which were quoted:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/how-black-lives-matter-changed-way-americans-fight
https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/hrdef-the-black-lives-matter-movement-and-the-workplace.html
Will do.
"(I can't say for sure, as I've only looked closely at a single contention in a single argument)."
I have never considered users citing PMs as evidence in debates.
By citing them, they intuitively seem to become a source (on a debate about sources no less). At the same time, it would be a tactic that could easily get out of control (such as were it to become half or more of someone's arguments... Not to say that exact amount should be codified, merely calling back to a writing rule of thumb about quotes vs your own material).
It's definitely not the same as plagiarism where someone copy/pastes someone else's argument on a given topic instead of writing their own (which I would still have a problem with, even with quotation marks and a link).
To me it most closely resembles anecdotal evidence. For example, on a recent debate I used my girlfriend's mixed heritage to make a point (which I then backed up with data on how common such cases are).
There is also the problem that such things could get out of control, with multiple authors ganging up on one.
It's a complex enough matter that it may warrant a MEEP question, to determine if such things merit a strong conduct penalty in future.
...
Personally, on this debate I am likely to dismiss it from consideration when voting, instead depending on the strength of what each wrote. (I can't say for sure, as I've only looked closely at a single contention in a single argument).
It's not moderated, so people are free to use what they like.
Thank you for the votes!
A report came in for this debate, but I am assuming it was a mis-click.
Good debate!
I think I already mentioned the key weakness of being absolutely all or absolutely nothing. Con without a doubt did a much better job of leveraging that (pro should have used more focus on how rare late term abortions are, and the reason for full term if they ever occur definitely should have been in there); I did not notice nearly emphasis from pro on logical exceptions (I wish it did not play in, but rape for starters, threat to the mothers life; I think I've gotten a pro-lifer to oppose cancer treatments before due to the tumor being somewhat comparable to a fetus).
I did not realize this was only a 2-round debate until midway through con's R2. I do generally suggest more rounds with less characters, which mitigates the contender advantage as voters get a better sense for how the debate is going as the arguments get more flushed out.
I already swore off voting, but were I to vote, it would be arguments to con, and all other points tied.
R2-con:
A/2 OPENING:
Well played, particularly the BoP reminder talk of doubt. As a data scientist, even with a low confidence remaining, the number leaves a heavy impact.
A/2 “1. Life Starts at Birth”
Well played. I find the reference to pro being ok with killing people in their sleep a comedic stretch, but that is about the only weakness I see here. Which is so much of why I personally focus on the people angle, giving no importance to the fact of human cells. I would like to think what you've done here is how I would argue your side of this debate.
A/2 “Abortion is NOT murder”
Had to look back, because I missed the chicken egg argument above. I think I already gave some commentary on this seperately. Anyway, good defenses on why we're ok with eating chickens at any level of development. ... This does remind me of the meat is murder claims and why they're invalid, however that is not directly connected to this debate, and I truly do understand the utility of the appeal.
A/2 “#1: Abortion lowered crime”
Skimming a bit... Good defense of the previous source, as the information was not challenged, merely the speaker.
A/2 #2 Women in the workplace
Nice bit with the inconsistent use. You can pretty much insert my usual stuff against abstinence only education here.
A/2 #3 Economy
Very nice defense of India, and overpopulation not being a true problem for the world yet. ... neatly I think my slavery argument started related to insisted need for population growth, some politician was insisting it was peoples duty to have kids to bolster the economy, which goes directly against Kantian ethics I was studying around then, that people should not be treated as a means by as an end onto themselves.
A/2 “Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions”
A fine defense. Not the best source, but I'm not even sure what source it is challenging so, *shrug*.
A/2 “UN Report”
Very good challenger to what was represented as being inside the source!
CONCLUSION:
I do really like seeing when these hold true between rounds.
R2-pro:
I do like the opening syllogism. Even while it intuitively highlights the problem of this debate excluding the middle ground forcing each side to be all or nothing. As con previously said "By conception, it is already debatably murder, but by the 9th month, it is definitely so."
Decent job with life begins at birth, but I'm gain reminded of the above quote (and I say this as someone who trusts late-term abortions are going to be for strong reasons, not merely 'nah, changed my mind').
The murder point was handled well. I suggest in future moving away from the not human focus, to the not a person focus. Intellectually, a cat is closer to a person than a fetus at any point in development; while we should embrace animal cruelty laws, we don't give people the electric chair for first degree murder of a cat (they probably deserve the electric chair, but the crime would be a different one).
"#1: Abortion lowered crime"
"The study conducted by Donohue-Levitt isolated variables to determine drop for what happened in 1992, which was different than today."
Sadly, most people are not going to understand fancy words like "variables." Still to me it's a good defense of the study. As for the counter study, a short quote from it would greatly improve the description of why it's wrong. Plus I think you may have been mistyped, looking back I think it was a Christian fundamentalist source, insisting on religious law; as opposed to an anti-Christian source.
"#2 Women in the workplace"
Very well done defense against using adoption as birth control.
I will note on sourcing, that even with that link pointing to specific lines of text, it still could have been displayed with minimal character usage.
A displayed "http://www.adopt.org/faqs" taking just the character count from that, could still point to: http://www.adopt.org/faqs#:~:text=The%20wait%20is%20typically%20between,from%20the%20time%20of%20placement.
"#3 Economy"
Good comparison to India.
Weirdly I've seen this type of thing either spiral into you being called a racist for saying India is not the ideal we should aspire up to, or the person claiming race plays a role in the bad result. Neither of which I expect from con on this one.
"#4 Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions"
A strong defense, which would have benefited from better sourcing (even just pointing to a specific part of that page). Granted, I tend to point people to lengthy PDF's from the UN and WHO, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.
A key thing I will say, is that con by bringing in the millions of annual murders, is pretty much offering an excuse for anyone already biased to vote their bias instead of the debate as it played out (not pointing any fingers, I've just been on these sites too long that I've seen it... Heck my fetus as money debate, at certain times would have garnered several votes against me for opposing the pro-life side on that).
"#5 UN Report"
I looked back, and had difficulty differentiating which link was the report as opposed to pictures from the report (which is cool to see, but maybe label the links as that instead of just as whatever URL shortener?). Which is funny, since I suspect I've been using the report in question for a few debates now.
"CON proposes a complete ban without exceptions" is something to focus on more. I feel con has been doing a really good job of highlighting that your side is allowing them without cause even at 9 months, and you've kinda been just taking it... Ah the source you use here, a quote from it would make it pop (and allow people like me to quickly find the relevant section within it; searching for "14" I could not find the explanation of why those were occurring to verify it).
"Closing"
"As established, abortion is impossible to argue as murder" this isn't really true, as con has been arguing just that (successful or not, it risks harming your case's credibility to deny what people have clearly seen). This is a little worse given that con has put some focus on fully viable ones being on the chopping block (even if that does not actually happen, it's still an effective emotional tug on the heartstrings). The "illegal abortions would still be rampant" is of course a great point, but it feels a bit buried (pretty sure it came up earlier, but it is not standing out).
I could have sworn I voted on this one already...
Haven't read it yet. I only glanced at what you had due to a report that you were having trouble posting. I'll let you know what I think of it when the debate concludes.
I applaud you for getting a diagram in there in spite the lack of photos!
Ok, I had to look up the chicken part. I'm coincidentally using a different chicken analogy in my own abortion debate right now.
Regarding yours, I would say the weakness is that it only works if someone has not made the human cell clusters are human life argument (which these days is almost assured). If they've made that, it leaves the thing in a grey area, still susceptible to pull from the potential millions of deaths abortion might represent.
At the risk of preaching, I hold to the belief that human beings are unique for our minds. From this perspective, the mere fact of measurable human cells does not matter so much unless it's a person. A fire in a fertility clinic with a daycare, save the children, not the millions of frozen embryos (saving the office cat over the embryos, would be debatable). Heck, if we find a way to transfer minds from dying humans into non-human bodies, I would view the intentional destruction of such as murder, in a way that most pro-life arguments would not.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It's an understandable mistake without "alike" defined, but the description clarified legalities, and con's arguments of non-alike traits does not seem to have been weighed properly.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
---
Intelligence_06
6 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: PRO successfully argued that P and P are alike, and CON did not argue what he is to argue: Neither of them is alike in any way, which is significantly harder. In my eyes, PRO wins the arguments. CON only pointed out the differences between the two but otherwise, they are still alike.
Conduct: Forfeit.
Sources: Neither has any, tie
S&G: tie. Both side readable
That was one of my best troll debates.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866/fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
> "by the way this debate is going I fear Ragnar supporting euthanizing babies lol"
I'm writing my rebuttals. If you would like I can include a side note of that (probably something something, Spartans are awesomeness, something something).
Way back on DDO I once started prepping a troll debate on fourth trimester abortions, with supporting evidence for the need to eliminate overgrown human cell clusters many years after they technically exited the womb but had since failed to intellectually develop into human beings (when doing a poll, I literally cited my two ex-brothers). ... Ok, I had to look it up, and I forgot how gloriously stupid the comments got!
https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-fourth-trimester-abortion-be-legal
R1-pro:
Strong opening statement from pro. I will say that it would not hold up as well for late-term abortions, but that is such a small percentage that it's not a major problem.
Stating the only thing against abortion "Some people are offended by it" is bound to be problematic, it kind of invites con to mention the Poisoning The Well fallacy, so long as he can name any reason other than being offended (I've seen plenty who do not raise it beyond that, so I do understand the statement).
"The Effect of Abortion on Crime"
Really good data here.
"Women in the workforce"
A good start, but it feels like it's leading into something that does not deliver. It kinda belongs as a subheading to the next point.
"Abortion’s effect on the Economy and Lower Class"
Ties nicely into explaining the crime rate data.
"Effects of a ban on abortion"
This should have been point one (after your introduction). Putting it late into the round, is burying the lead; worse, it risks people skimming past it.
"Closing Remarks"
It right away cites a disproven reason for abortion bans. That kind of thing could have been its own contention, with a list of them, and the refusal of pro-life states to change in spite of being proven wrong in their excuses (general pro-life states avoids risk of targeting your opponent directly, even while implicitly attacking their position).
Conduct: Not nearly enough to be penalized, but it's usually best to in R1 as the instigator to not overly frame someone else's case. Even while I advise how to use guilt by association, such should be done carefully to not border on Ad Hominems. Your R1 as instigator should primarily be why you're right, less so why the other person is wrong.
---
R1-con:
“THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION”
The walk through the stages of pregnancy, is something I think it missing on most of these debates. I nearly did it on my current debate (before seeing it here), but the character limit was getting tight already. I will outright suggest this (well maybe a less one sided one) as something in the description on these.
Also the framing of pro’s case for late term abortions, was smart (gets less flack from me as this is in response). It does highlight one problem on this debate, in that these debates should generally be over when the cutoff occurs, as opposed to all or nothing.
“ABORTIONS DO NOT KILL”
I always dislike graphic descriptions, but I do understand it as a tactic.
“LIFE AT CONCEPTION”
I admit I did not understand the phrasing: “PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
“CRIME & CONDITIONS”
Con does a very good reframing (sorry that I keep using that term) of this contention, pointing blame at bad parents (who pro argues should thus not be forced to become parents). He has a counter proposal, which is a little besides the point about these debates, but well played. The problem with this type of counter proposal, is it is not guaranteed to happen either way. I admit I actually make about the same one regardless of if abortion should be legal or not… Effectively, I argue that if abortion is to be illegal, first there should be full support in place provided by the government for expectant mothers and their future children, to take away much of the current need for abortion.
“ECONOMIC BENEFIT”
Well played counter that those children would be consumers. It is an argument that usually stands on thin ice, yet one that is usually unopposed for some reason.
“ABORTIONS ARE SAFE (UNLESS DONE ILLEGALLY):”
“Advertising the ability to efficiently kill children may not be the best way to advocate for abortion in terms of ethics.” Very well said. The safety is better as a defense point when deluded people start citing long disproven things, but standing on its own without being a response to that, it’s very vulnerable to this type of counter.
The rest of his counter was less good, I even glanced into one of the sources… Curious if pro will catch the faults or not. If not, them standing uncontested would greatly hurt the affirmative case.
“NICARAGUA AND THE UN REPORT”
A bit of a deflection, but a wise one. Again, pointing back to the pro case being the opposite of this messed up place, which also gets into an ugly area.
Sources: Skimming over the sources, they tended to be openly agenda driven ones. Within such sources, they often call to better sources, which are needless to say, better to use. I don't know yet if pro weaponizes them properly, but these sources would be easy to flip to bolster his claims about the pro-life stance is based on "-Some people are offended by it (for moral/religious reasons pertaining to their feelings)"
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Seriously, this could be called a two round forfeit, but that is pretty far from a full forfeiture.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
54 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
full forfeit, and pro sources were not that good
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
18 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
pro's case is too difficult; it's too hard to argue that during all of pregnancy that the baby is not alive. If pro could even provide the shred of doubt before 9 weeks (and thus hard to provide any responses from the fetus), then he could make a break through in con's case. Alas, he could not.
> "as raising the born baby costs far, far more than just giving birth, and you could use this idea to euthanize the baby"
I may have to use that in a troll debate sometime.
Just don't go the direction of Gish Galloping.
Also you should know that numbered links [1, 2, etc], take even less of the character limit than URL shorteners. Plus just by hovering the mouse, someone can see what it is pointing to. ... I still generally suggest a list at the end, but I'd be lying if I said I never condensed something down in there.
This debate now has a follow up debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate
This is the greatest use of the comment section I can remember.
It's so nice to see the debaters having a genuine discussion with each other.
Oh and FYI, if you both want the debate may be changed to rated.
...
Regarding voting: You can expect me to read this debate. However, I will probably not be moved out of the tied range, given that it looks like a great job from both combined with my own bias which extends the tied range.
I've long considered one of my debates to be the best abortion debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024/should-abortion-be-made-illegal), but this one might unseat it.
FYI, 7-point votes are very rare.
If looking over old debates on this site, a really good set to check out is:
https://www.debateart.com/participants/semperfortis/debates?type=finished
I'm going to have more time for the next few days, and in dire need of a distraction, so happy to accept this direct challenge.
If you would like anything plugged into the full description, please let me know. A good example of this would be any important definitions (I'll probably agree to anything that isn't an extreme case of cherry-picking).
To avoid any confusion as you draft your R1: I presume your side of this debate is that abortion should be generally banned, with an exception for things that are very likely to kill the mother in the short-term (like ectopic pregnancy).
>> "Yet, a moderator, in a vote, declared agreement with a debater that sources are not absolutely necessary to use in debate. I am purposefully not providing the link nor the direct quote by a moderator to both protect that moderator and because voting on this debate should not consider outside content, specifically because, according to the Voting Policy, “…reasoning that stems from already-placed votes…” should not be considered for voting. The Pro arguments for this debate will not further reference the commentary referenced above, but will prove by reference to sourcing demonstrating the soundness of the voting policy with regard to sourcing."
For reference, the vote in question may be found at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2173/vote_links/5467
Yes, the debate was able to be voted on in spite of con having no sources. The result ended up being sources to pro, arguments to con, all other points tied.
And to quote the sources decision: "I agree with con that sources are not absolutely necessary. That said, pro still put the work into his research, and gets credit for that..." it of course went on to point out a specific source, and describe impacts.
The above may or may not be used as evidence within this debate. If it is not cited by either debater, votes based upon it will of course have to be removed. If it is used as evidence within the debate, it contextually is not an already placed vote on this debate, so is fair game as evidence (the policy is contextually referring to the problem of piggy-back voting within any given debate). I should however mention that I am not infallible. I've had votes deleted for falling short of the standard.
Temping... However, the semantic rabbit hole that there may be A debate they are required on, even if not every debate, is something I do not wish to explore.
King Leopold II was not from any of the Americas, and died well over a hundred years ago. Yet he seems to be who you believe the average white American is today.
Reading R2, it seems the instigator did not read two key phrases within the resolution: "The Recent ... America"
The heat death of the universe IMO is not something within the implied scope of the debate.
>> How the fuck can you allow that RFD from seldiora?!
You may want to cool down. Votes get posted, and then IF reported get reviewed. They are by default allowed from any member in good standing.
For each of you, when citing any important facts, please provide a link for verification.
As an example, re-education camps in China: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063
Or China trying to improve it's justice system: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53666557
As always, here's a handy guide for debate formatting with a few argument tips:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
NOTICE: 2 days remain for voting.
I might get around to this, but I can't promise as I have to try to recover from a terrible weekend, and knock out some important job application activities.
NOTICE: only 2 hours remain for voting.
Conduct only votes are warranted without analysis of other points due to >=50% forfeiture.
It's not quite a full forfeiture... That said, I'm going to edit my vote to tie arguments. I expected many conduct only votes for the >50% forfeiture.
NOTICE: Less than a day remains for voting.
Thank you for the vote. And yeah, that first sentence when compared with the debate content (no suggestion of it offering any improvement for anyone on any metric), it really did sow the seeds of destruction.
Thank you for the vote. It was hands down the most Boss vote I have seen, in that it made multiple references to Like A Boss, to which all other votes fall short.
I don't think I'll pull Like A Boss every time someone has a Should Proposal, but when they refuse to raise it above purely magical thinking, I might make it by go to superior counter proposal.
Skimming the first half of R1, I'd say pro has a shot at this.