While I doubt you'll ever agree abortion is a right; if you would ever like to discuss why it's not murder, I would be glad for the opportunity to try to enlighten you.
'Literally a different way of saying "I killed someone" is "I stopped them from living".'
This weirdly reminds me of a serial killer who thought he figured out the perfect crime by destroying the bodies in acid. He even confessed to it, believing that to be charged with murder required a corpse.
Not penalizing this, but there was a funny S&G error:
"I would like to ask you what you think it would be like to have a reminder that you were rapped inside of you."
The word you meant was raped. Granted, I once did a whole debate on the distinction.
https://www.debate.org/debates/should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/
As a note to avoid accidents, the instigator in this debate is not the pro side for the resolution. Anyone who accepts this needs to argue both that women are not in leadership roles, and it is because they are scared.
The language used in such studies, thematically reminds me of your argument against the word IF.
Pretty much any normal person would state "this proves X," whereas professional scientists are stuck with things like "this strongly implies X... subject to further analysis."
It's too late to make the resolution into a single clause, so you should seek to quickly establish some measure of support for each that you have.
A guide which you may find useful (snippet below): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
"Writing A Strong Resolution
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove."
It's generally best to not accuse voters of being unable to read. And specially in the case of Trent, he clearly put the time into reading the debate, and made a detailed ruling based on his interpretation of the Burden of Proof. It is further unlikely that he has any agenda with his numerous votes.
One thing you can do, is advertise the debate to try to attain more votes. Just do so neutrally (ask for votes, not for the voters to vote any certain way). A good place to start on this, would be the vote request thread in the main forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492/vote-requests
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Removed by request of voter.
>General feedback on the vote:
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(1) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and
(3) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Nevets
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Have read Pros definitions, womens health, human rights, morality and law, defense, morality and law, defense, people seeds, the violinist, r1 human rights, r1, womens health, R3 Human rights, Judith Jarvis Thomson, conclusion, womens health, human rights, mortality and law, people seeds, violinist argument, grammar and spelling, final word.
Its a great article. But there is something crucially missing. The Pro himherself fails to include the central argument. Which is the baby.
Where-as Con gets right to the Central argument with his very first statement 1) What is the unborn?
And that "is" the central argument.
The "unborn" should have had a place in pros black headlines along with womens health and human rights and violinists.
Instead he/she talked a lot about Nazis ecetera. Completely failed to give any importance to the central point in his/her own argument.
Without yet reading this, I am interested in seeing what evidence to support the hypo theoretical "may" is in place. May is a dangerous term to put into a resolution, as without supporting evidence to establish some small degree of probably, the debate becomes a truism.
There's no way to change the character limit now. You and your opponent might agree to an extension to be posted in the comments or something, but no judge is obligated to read it.
I gave this an initial read through. Not voting yet, but a couple preliminary comments:
“There are consequences to our actions, and they can be good and bad.” Well said. Terry Pratchett’s book Going Postal opens on similar consideration.
However much of pro's opening was looking at the matter through a religious lense, which given the description could harm conduct. On that, I don't think it actually harmed the arguments, as they were not dependent on religious preference, but rather were using them like an analogy. Related to that, I don't see a problem with the vegan fox analogy (even while if forced it would be a cruel violation of the nature and literally biology of the beast).
I was worried con would just argue a perfect person doesn't exist, but he spent a lot of his time on something little better. Basically a mix of Discourse and Normative Kritiks (https://tiny.cc/Kritik). As much as I could offer a better definition of evil, the pre-agreed definitions of good and evil functioned fine for this debate.
I'm leaning on pro's favor on arguments. However, con put some work into his challenge for if a struggle really occurs. In a few days or so, I'll try to re-read with emphasis on that to determine a winner.
Unfortunately the number of rounds cannot be edited after the debate has started. You can simply type one word like "extend," instead of writing any paragraphs for your closing.
We were all new to the standard once. I stand by my assessment of the first vote as falling short (while showing no signs of malice), but make no assessment of the second. The advice I gave, was not to demean or insult, it is the same in gist to advice I have given dozens of times. It was intended solely as a precaution due to the new vote being challenged; a vote to which I firmly withhold judgement and have already passed moderation duties on to others to handle.
Fauxlaw seems like a genuinely positive contributor. I humbly apologize for any harm I have unwittingly inflicted with my earlier advice.
I'm asking another moderator to handle the review of the new vote.
Without judgement for if this applies to the new one... A basic rule of thumb is that you're not voting for who is right, merely who argued the resolution better. As a related example, when a pro-lifer argued "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" even if he was right due to being pro-life, he still lost the debate due to various practical considerations.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: In essence, the vote feels like it is the voter's opinion of the topic to say who is right and wrong, as opposed to being about the content of the debate itself (even while some content was indeed mentioned).
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(1) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and
(3) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
fauxlaw
4 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
1. Rights/Roles
Pro argues that women do not share the reproductive rights a man enjoys, and worse, declares the "right" as a disadvantage if exercised. This is not a valid argument because women and men do not share the same reproductive biology. A right is ubiquitous. No demographic can separate rights, even by gender. If any demographic is acknowledged in separate rights on the same subject, the right is forfeited, or, rather, was never granted in the first place. Therefore, a "reproductive right" must be considered as something else, but not an inherent right. Further, calling it a "reproductive" right when the preference is to not reproduce in kind, contrary to the nature of separate gender reproductive, contributive biology, seems to cause a legal hiccup not resolved merely by claiming "reproductive right."
Further, the claim of Roe v Wade of a woman's right to the privacy of her body is unsupportable relative to the case decision reference of several constitutional amendments, particularly the 4A and 14A, both of which speak to "secure in their persons" which is an entirely different concept than "privacy," since a person can be insecure in their own home [as by a member of the household] and private in a crowd [as by remaining aloof]. Abortion proponents claim that a woman has the right of privacy of her body, and that a fetus is an invasion on that privacy. In fact, 'privacy' is a non-extant term in the Constitution. However, a woman's physiological structure is such that, when pregnant, although enveloping the fetus, the fetus, the umbilical, the amniotic sac, and its fluid, and the placenta are of completely different DNA than the pregnant woman. No part of these tissues are "part of" her body. Quite simply, nature given its natural course, all of that tissue is ejected from the woman's body, and the fetus remains a separate, distinct being on its own merit. It never was, and never is part of her body. Otherwise, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue wold fall out.
2. Human v. Person
Both sides argued this point, and, indeed, as Pro charged in round 3, they were "talking passed one another." However, whereas Pro vacillated in the use of both terms, Con argued the "human" perspective much more consistently than Pro argued the "person" perspective. Since the law is at odds with itself on this point, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which applies a double-murder charge, which is only perpetrated against a person, to a perpetrator when murdering a pregnant woman, as opposed to 1 U.S.C. §8, which defines a person as born alive, regardless of state of development, the consistency goes to Con.
3. Nazis
I found this whole argument non-relevant to the debate question. That both engaged it, though launched by Con, is a negation to both. As I deem it a non sequitur discussion point, I eliminate it out of hand as a scoring factor.
The place to advance your Nazi comparison is inside the debate rounds. If I read any of it in the comments, it would create undue influence on my vote.
I would say a newborn generally deserves ≥ to the unborn. Which is an area of disagreement I get into with a number of pro-lifers, who firmly believe the newborn deserves < to the unborn.
Of course within the unborn, I would use a pretty clear developmental hierarchy relating to worth. This is easily exemplified with the pain of miscarriage varying based on how far into the pregnancy it occurs.
While we have our disagreements, I am glad to see you're not one of the pro-lifers who believes in the immediate dropping of rights post birth: "the unborn is due rights equal to individuals born into the world alive."
Your opponent has quit the site, so "Extend" in each of your rounds should do it unless he comes back.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3949/i-have-converted-to-taoism-and-i-quit-this-website
If debating this again, I strongly suggest defining your terms in the description, along with things like if YEC is assumed. Possibly level of BoP as well, such as if you want to prove with fossil records that the entire surface of the earth was submerged, or the lighter one that many parts of the earth have been flooded.
>>> "Who is pushing to maximize teen pregnancies? That is nonsense."
As already stated: "decreased teen abortions by 48%. The only people opposed to this were pro-lifers" and "in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall)."
>>> "Are all human beings intrinsically valuable? If not then what does it matter what we do with teenagers or the unborn?"
You may want to be more careful of your phrasing when referencing teenage girls.
As per your question: see my previous answers on it.
>>> "'I'm not sure why you are tying in birth control with abortion in this manner. To me, it gives the appearance of villanizing the Pro-life stance."
When that stance is literally that not becoming pregnant is the same as an abortion (as pro-lifers argued in Colorado), I'll happily villainize it.
https://www.mynspr.org/post/colorado-debates-whether-iuds-are-contraception-or-abortion
>>> "My aunt was murdered and my uncle lost his farm and fled the country."
>>>3. "Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion?"
>>>What does that mean? I don't follow your line of reasoning. How can you have an abortion without first being pregnant?
Pro-life politicians push to maximize teen pregnancy rates even at the expense of increased abortions. And pro-lifers in the general public lend support for this by electing and re-electing them, sometimes as single-issue voters.
Easy examples of this in action:
1. In Colorado public funding for contraceptives saved the state a massive $5.85 per $1 spent, this equaled about $79 million saved in just two years. Further, this decreased teen abortions by 48%. The only people opposed to this were pro-lifers.
2. Pro lifers in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall).
Three common pro-life beliefs:
1. There's literally no difference between the unborn and a fully functioning adult.
2. Abortion is legally murder.
3. Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion.
What do you actually want to debate?
This debate promised Mad Max...
While I doubt you'll ever agree abortion is a right; if you would ever like to discuss why it's not murder, I would be glad for the opportunity to try to enlighten you.
'Literally a different way of saying "I killed someone" is "I stopped them from living".'
This weirdly reminds me of a serial killer who thought he figured out the perfect crime by destroying the bodies in acid. He even confessed to it, believing that to be charged with murder required a corpse.
Not penalizing this, but there was a funny S&G error:
"I would like to ask you what you think it would be like to have a reminder that you were rapped inside of you."
The word you meant was raped. Granted, I once did a whole debate on the distinction.
https://www.debate.org/debates/should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/
Only two days remain in the voting window.
I think you may have used the wrong title for this debate, as I can't imagine any way the mining of the moon is connected to US contributions to WHO.
Just have fun with it, and try to learn something.
Could be an entertaining one. I'll look forward to reading whatever supported arguments are made (note: unwarranted assertions rarely win).
You two should probably just have another debate...
As a note to avoid accidents, the instigator in this debate is not the pro side for the resolution. Anyone who accepts this needs to argue both that women are not in leadership roles, and it is because they are scared.
It seems to me there are two groupings of progressives to consider: The average voter, and ones with political influence.
With three choices if/when Biden wins the primary, are as follows: Biden (democratic), Trump (republican), or effectively abstain.
It was created by a user with an /interesting/ sense of humor.
The language used in such studies, thematically reminds me of your argument against the word IF.
Pretty much any normal person would state "this proves X," whereas professional scientists are stuck with things like "this strongly implies X... subject to further analysis."
The problem with Incels is they're not sending their best...
Anyway, a definition of "bad person" might be useful, even with Incel being open to interpretation.
It's too late to make the resolution into a single clause, so you should seek to quickly establish some measure of support for each that you have.
A guide which you may find useful (snippet below): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
"Writing A Strong Resolution
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove."
It's generally best to not accuse voters of being unable to read. And specially in the case of Trent, he clearly put the time into reading the debate, and made a detailed ruling based on his interpretation of the Burden of Proof. It is further unlikely that he has any agenda with his numerous votes.
One thing you can do, is advertise the debate to try to attain more votes. Just do so neutrally (ask for votes, not for the voters to vote any certain way). A good place to start on this, would be the vote request thread in the main forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492/vote-requests
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Removed by request of voter.
>General feedback on the vote:
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(1) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and
(3) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Nevets
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Have read Pros definitions, womens health, human rights, morality and law, defense, morality and law, defense, people seeds, the violinist, r1 human rights, r1, womens health, R3 Human rights, Judith Jarvis Thomson, conclusion, womens health, human rights, mortality and law, people seeds, violinist argument, grammar and spelling, final word.
Its a great article. But there is something crucially missing. The Pro himherself fails to include the central argument. Which is the baby.
Where-as Con gets right to the Central argument with his very first statement 1) What is the unborn?
And that "is" the central argument.
The "unborn" should have had a place in pros black headlines along with womens health and human rights and violinists.
Instead he/she talked a lot about Nazis ecetera. Completely failed to give any importance to the central point in his/her own argument.
Con did.
Any good voter, votes based on the debate content, instead of merely their agreement or disagreement with the notion.
Trolls gonna troll.
Without yet reading this, I am interested in seeing what evidence to support the hypo theoretical "may" is in place. May is a dangerous term to put into a resolution, as without supporting evidence to establish some small degree of probably, the debate becomes a truism.
There's no way to change the character limit now. You and your opponent might agree to an extension to be posted in the comments or something, but no judge is obligated to read it.
I gave this an initial read through. Not voting yet, but a couple preliminary comments:
“There are consequences to our actions, and they can be good and bad.” Well said. Terry Pratchett’s book Going Postal opens on similar consideration.
However much of pro's opening was looking at the matter through a religious lense, which given the description could harm conduct. On that, I don't think it actually harmed the arguments, as they were not dependent on religious preference, but rather were using them like an analogy. Related to that, I don't see a problem with the vegan fox analogy (even while if forced it would be a cruel violation of the nature and literally biology of the beast).
I was worried con would just argue a perfect person doesn't exist, but he spent a lot of his time on something little better. Basically a mix of Discourse and Normative Kritiks (https://tiny.cc/Kritik). As much as I could offer a better definition of evil, the pre-agreed definitions of good and evil functioned fine for this debate.
I'm leaning on pro's favor on arguments. However, con put some work into his challenge for if a struggle really occurs. In a few days or so, I'll try to re-read with emphasis on that to determine a winner.
This is actually one of the best use of debates, to get some early peer-review in on drafts to things.
You may want to add "most likely" to the resolution. Right now someone could assert almost any other idea to deny you BoP.
I suggest con pick no more than three big crimes to focus on, to avoid risk of Gish Galloping.
You can have several debates active at a time. So by all means, start another.
Back when I was in school with full easy access to academic journals, I would have jumped at this.
Anyway, best of luck to you.
Unfortunately the number of rounds cannot be edited after the debate has started. You can simply type one word like "extend," instead of writing any paragraphs for your closing.
Regarding Fauxlaw.
We were all new to the standard once. I stand by my assessment of the first vote as falling short (while showing no signs of malice), but make no assessment of the second. The advice I gave, was not to demean or insult, it is the same in gist to advice I have given dozens of times. It was intended solely as a precaution due to the new vote being challenged; a vote to which I firmly withhold judgement and have already passed moderation duties on to others to handle.
Fauxlaw seems like a genuinely positive contributor. I humbly apologize for any harm I have unwittingly inflicted with my earlier advice.
I'm asking another moderator to handle the review of the new vote.
Without judgement for if this applies to the new one... A basic rule of thumb is that you're not voting for who is right, merely who argued the resolution better. As a related example, when a pro-lifer argued "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" even if he was right due to being pro-life, he still lost the debate due to various practical considerations.
This debate topic reminds me of one of the Ender novels by Orson Scott Card, when the near-sociopath Peter Wiggin struggles against his nature.
I now can't read the debate without thinking about DP the wrong way... Or maybe the right way...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: In essence, the vote feels like it is the voter's opinion of the topic to say who is right and wrong, as opposed to being about the content of the debate itself (even while some content was indeed mentioned).
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
(1) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and
(3) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
fauxlaw
4 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
1. Rights/Roles
Pro argues that women do not share the reproductive rights a man enjoys, and worse, declares the "right" as a disadvantage if exercised. This is not a valid argument because women and men do not share the same reproductive biology. A right is ubiquitous. No demographic can separate rights, even by gender. If any demographic is acknowledged in separate rights on the same subject, the right is forfeited, or, rather, was never granted in the first place. Therefore, a "reproductive right" must be considered as something else, but not an inherent right. Further, calling it a "reproductive" right when the preference is to not reproduce in kind, contrary to the nature of separate gender reproductive, contributive biology, seems to cause a legal hiccup not resolved merely by claiming "reproductive right."
Further, the claim of Roe v Wade of a woman's right to the privacy of her body is unsupportable relative to the case decision reference of several constitutional amendments, particularly the 4A and 14A, both of which speak to "secure in their persons" which is an entirely different concept than "privacy," since a person can be insecure in their own home [as by a member of the household] and private in a crowd [as by remaining aloof]. Abortion proponents claim that a woman has the right of privacy of her body, and that a fetus is an invasion on that privacy. In fact, 'privacy' is a non-extant term in the Constitution. However, a woman's physiological structure is such that, when pregnant, although enveloping the fetus, the fetus, the umbilical, the amniotic sac, and its fluid, and the placenta are of completely different DNA than the pregnant woman. No part of these tissues are "part of" her body. Quite simply, nature given its natural course, all of that tissue is ejected from the woman's body, and the fetus remains a separate, distinct being on its own merit. It never was, and never is part of her body. Otherwise, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue wold fall out.
2. Human v. Person
Both sides argued this point, and, indeed, as Pro charged in round 3, they were "talking passed one another." However, whereas Pro vacillated in the use of both terms, Con argued the "human" perspective much more consistently than Pro argued the "person" perspective. Since the law is at odds with itself on this point, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which applies a double-murder charge, which is only perpetrated against a person, to a perpetrator when murdering a pregnant woman, as opposed to 1 U.S.C. §8, which defines a person as born alive, regardless of state of development, the consistency goes to Con.
3. Nazis
I found this whole argument non-relevant to the debate question. That both engaged it, though launched by Con, is a negation to both. As I deem it a non sequitur discussion point, I eliminate it out of hand as a scoring factor.
Agreed. To me the final round should be a conclusion to what came before, not a time for epiphanies.
If something changes in the coming weeks after the debate, there's always the option of a rematch.
The place to advance your Nazi comparison is inside the debate rounds. If I read any of it in the comments, it would create undue influence on my vote.
For the evolving situation, I think a good cutoff would be the end of R2.
Of course any vote based on parts of his response not mentioned in the debate, will be deleted if reported.
I would say a newborn generally deserves ≥ to the unborn. Which is an area of disagreement I get into with a number of pro-lifers, who firmly believe the newborn deserves < to the unborn.
Of course within the unborn, I would use a pretty clear developmental hierarchy relating to worth. This is easily exemplified with the pain of miscarriage varying based on how far into the pregnancy it occurs.
While we have our disagreements, I am glad to see you're not one of the pro-lifers who believes in the immediate dropping of rights post birth: "the unborn is due rights equal to individuals born into the world alive."
Good topic.
It's completely your choice what you post.
Your opponent has quit the site, so "Extend" in each of your rounds should do it unless he comes back.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3949/i-have-converted-to-taoism-and-i-quit-this-website
Nice job on your R1. There's a lot of debaters who would have just forfeited against that argument; you just happened to go against a damned good one.
Anyways, thanks for giving me something to ponder over a beer with friends.
If debating this again, I strongly suggest defining your terms in the description, along with things like if YEC is assumed. Possibly level of BoP as well, such as if you want to prove with fossil records that the entire surface of the earth was submerged, or the lighter one that many parts of the earth have been flooded.
See previous message.
>>> "Who is pushing to maximize teen pregnancies? That is nonsense."
As already stated: "decreased teen abortions by 48%. The only people opposed to this were pro-lifers" and "in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall)."
>>> "Are all human beings intrinsically valuable? If not then what does it matter what we do with teenagers or the unborn?"
You may want to be more careful of your phrasing when referencing teenage girls.
As per your question: see my previous answers on it.
>>> "'I'm not sure why you are tying in birth control with abortion in this manner. To me, it gives the appearance of villanizing the Pro-life stance."
When that stance is literally that not becoming pregnant is the same as an abortion (as pro-lifers argued in Colorado), I'll happily villainize it.
https://www.mynspr.org/post/colorado-debates-whether-iuds-are-contraception-or-abortion
>>> "My aunt was murdered and my uncle lost his farm and fled the country."
You have my sincere sympathy.
>>>3. "Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion?"
>>>What does that mean? I don't follow your line of reasoning. How can you have an abortion without first being pregnant?
Pro-life politicians push to maximize teen pregnancy rates even at the expense of increased abortions. And pro-lifers in the general public lend support for this by electing and re-electing them, sometimes as single-issue voters.
Easy examples of this in action:
1. In Colorado public funding for contraceptives saved the state a massive $5.85 per $1 spent, this equaled about $79 million saved in just two years. Further, this decreased teen abortions by 48%. The only people opposed to this were pro-lifers.
2. Pro lifers in Texas have pushed abstinence only sex education, knowing that such increases the number of abortions (the trick is the abortion rate stays the same, so more underage girls are pregnant overall).
Three common pro-life beliefs:
1. There's literally no difference between the unborn and a fully functioning adult.
2. Abortion is legally murder.
3. Not being pregnant is the same as getting an abortion.