"Do you also honestly believe the North Korean government doesn't engage in sex trafficking?"
I see. That is a very good argument. Whats the source? Twitter?
"Again imagine you're in a biblical debate (of course citing the bible for some point) and a voter does their own research"
Voting policy clearly says voters have full right to deny the relevance of the source should they find that one side lied about what was in their source.
Same with your example of Bible. If you claim how Bible says that humans were once fish and to support this you randomly post link to Bibles Genesis 1 claiming it contains evidence for your claim, I as a voter will 1) look at your link, 2) establish that you obviously lied, 3) reject the relevance of your link to your claim. All according to the voting policy.
Big military sounds like a waste when comparing it to just one other country. While North Korea has a bigger military than that of USA, it doesnt have bigger military than that of NATO alliance combined with South Korea. NATO alliance has over 3 million troops. South Korea has 6.7 million troops. In total, thats 10 million troops. North Korea has 7.7 million troops. So in case of war, NATO plus South Korea would have slight advantage in numbers.
While nuclear weapons would wipe out most of USA, South Korea, and NATOs military capabilities, there is a chance that their troops cross North Koreans territory.
Remember that North Korea also has 2 sides of its country open to the sea. This makes it possible to almost surround North Korea and invade its territory.
In this scenario, North Korea would be forced to either use nuclear weapons on its own territory, or use military troops to respond.
Military troops are a better option, because saving nuclear weapons to be used on USA, NATO and South Korea sounds better.
Military in North Korea is not an ordinary military. Their military helps citizens during floods, helps repair the damage, relocates resources, guard borders so that no surprise attack happens...
Having less military would greatly reduce North Koreas chances of fighting on its own territory.
"If an argument wasn't made by a debater "
Argument was made by a source presented by a debater.
Are you saying sources arent part of the debate?
If you say they are only part of the debate when mentioned by debaters: Con mentioned that his source contains evidence. If Cons source obviously doesnt contain evidence, I as a voter will treat Cons claim as unsupported.
If there is no evidence in the source, if the source merely repeats the claim, if the source contradicts the claim, then the relevance of the source drops.
This isnt about adding arguments. This is about accepting Cons source as relevant evidence for his claim.
Judgement was made based upon what Con said and the evidence his source presented.
1) Again, you are making the argument that Con should be rewarded for not providing any evidence for his claim.
2) You are making the argument that the obvious lack of evidence for the claim is the evidence for the claim.
3) You are saying I should ignore evidence in Cons source that contradicts Cons claim and instead accept the repetition of a claim as evidence for the claim.
Please tell me, which part of voting policy says that repetition of the claim(circular reasoning) is a relevant evidence for that claim?
You are saying I have no right to question relevance of such claim. Since you probably read the voting policy, you probably read this:
"The one exception where it is acceptable to do this would be a situation in which the voter notices one side blatantly lying about what is present in their source (even if that criticism wasn’t brought up by the opponent)."
This is directly related to what you copied to your argument from the voting policy. Apparently, the voting policy allows me to judge Cons claim of presence of evidence in the source, when there isnt such evidence but actually contradictory evidence present in the source.
There isnt even an implied warrant present in Cons case. Source negates his claim at the very start.
If the source is irrelevant, I cannot treat it as relevant. That would be a contradiction and a nonsense.
"Sources is how the debaters (not the voter) utilized and analyzed them."
If Con provides a source that negates his own claim, I will not accept that source as anything else but exactly that.
Do you say I should accept the source as it said the opposite of what it said?
That is what you are saying.
Again, I did not add the arguments. Instead I used facts Con provided in his own source to make a judgement.
I already explained this 50 times. Weighting sources and claims is not me adding arguments of my own.
Will you post those same arguments tommorow too? You have been posting same refuted arguments for 3 days now.
Downgrading personal choice to logical evaluation based on someone elses standards and not the standards of the person making the choice negates the point of personal choice.
Sure, there may be benefits to having children. There may be downsides. Its really up to the person to estimate what he or she prefer.
You could say that not having offspring is equal to murdering your offspring due to results being the same. But thats just the problem with consistency in societys morality and not the problem of the person itself.
"convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage"
This is a contradiction. I already explained this.
"The page goes on explicitly state "miscarriage" like a dozen times."
Sorry, do you know what evidence is? Repeating something a dozen times is not evidence. Otherwise, I would just repeat every claim a dozen times and prove you wrong
The source itself later said:
"Convicted for manslaughter"
"Used illegal drugs"
"Drugs found in unborn sons brain and liver"
This is obviously not miscarriage. Manslaughter means she holds liability to what happened. Miscarriage means holding no liability.
"Pro did not mention anything from the medical examiner"
"nor did Con"
Medical examiner was presented in Cons source. Do I have to say it 100 times?
Con mentioned that his source contains evidence of punishment for miscarriages.
I clicked on the source.
Right at the start of a source, it says "manslaughter". Hence, not miscarriage.
Notice that when you post a source and you are claiming it contains a fact which it doesnt, you are contradicting yourself and using irrelevant source.
I as a voter have every right to dismiss such irrelevant source.
You are just repeating the same points I refuted yesterday.
Like, what did you think would happen if you spam same refuted points over and over?
I already responded to those exact arguments multiple times.
"Not presented or alluded"
Are you saying Con didnt present a source that contains facts? Are you saying Con never alluded to the facts from the source?
About the miscarriage:
You didnt make any argument here. Apparently, you didnt bother to read my argument about the difference between manslaughter and miscarriage. By definition, these two are mutually exclusive. This means miscarriage can never be manslaughter.
Also, you are mentioning how I added something not presented by anyone, something that was more than just judgment?
Are you actually claiming Con didnt present his source nor alluded to it?
"This isn’t about adding judgement. It’s about inserting points that weren’t made by the debaters into the debate."
If judgment itself is not the inserted point, then my judgment of your source was not an inserted point in any way. It was judgement.
"You’re effectively punishing me for something you did that my opponent neglected to do. "
I could turn this and say that you are being punished for something that you neglected to do when making claims. That something is providing the actual evidence.
Also, every vote is adding its own judgment to the debate. Merely attributing points does that. So if judgment is the same as intervening, then every vote does that. If judgment is not intervening, then I cant be accussed of intervening. All I did was judge based on what was presented.
I didnt need to"dig into a source" to find a contradiction. I simply clicked on it. Right at the start it contradicted the very point you made.
Also, source must contain evidence. If your source doesnt contain evidence right at the start, I have to read more of it to make sure there is evidence in it.
Should I just read the beginning? Beginning contradicts to the point you made.
Should I not click on the source at all? Then I cant know it actually has evidence or not.
So what am I supposed to do? Not read sources? Read just the beginning? Ignore the fact that source doesnt support the claim?
Thats actually just if rules of the debate say so.
What if the debate only has 1 round? Even if thats not the case, what if Con posts 10000 pictures of cats in round 1, demanding rebuttal for every single one picture specifically, then posts another 10000 in round 2, then another 10000 in round 3? Pro cant say they are all irrelevant unless he looked at each one, described what it contained, and provided rebuttal.
Notice the possible trap here. Con can post 10000 cat pictures, and among them having one thats actually not a cat picture but has the evidence.
So Pro says: Those are just cat pictures.
Then in the round before the last, Con says: I provided evidence. Not all are cat pictures. You didnt refute. Its in the picture number 6875. Dropped.
If we have to ignore the rebuttals in the last round, Pro cant respond with rebuttal to the picture number 6875.
So it follows that Pro would be in a very difficult position.
As a voter, I do have a right to weight the arguments and relevance of sources based on what was presented in them.
How do I weight the arguments? Most importantly, by seeing whether there is a contradiction within them, or to the position they are supposed to support. Then I am weighting that to the other debaters arguments, seeing which one supports the positions in question and which one is negated by some other argument.
Sources are supposed to be the evidence for the argument. If source itself doesnt provide supporting evidence, but merely repeats the claim or contradicts it, then it is the same as if there was no source provided.
You claimed that your source contained the evidence of punishing women for miscarriages. However, when I clicked on the source, it literally said 1)"convicted for manslaughter", 2)"used illegal drugs during pregnancy", 3)"drug found in her unborn sons brain and liver".
Manslaughter and miscarriage are mutually exclusive terms, hence contradicting each other. As there was no evidence of miscarriage, I had to place in question the relevance of the evidence.
Notice that you did not, anywhere in the debate, explain how miscarriage is manslaughter.
Pros source, Mens rea, literally negates the claim that it is possible to be legally prosecuted for miscarriage.
So for that debate, my vote would be like: "Since Con supported his claim with 10000 cat pictures in the last round, and since Pro couldnt respond to that as it was the last round, Con wins the sources and the debate."?
Imagine a situation where as a voter you are forced to take cat pictures as valid evidence, and weight that against the actual evidence as if they both supported the claim.
While this scenario is unlikely to happen, one must make sure that all similar scenarios give voters the ability to question the relevance of evidence.
Of course, a voter must present a good reason to question the evidence using only what was presented in evidence itself or debate.
Yes, in theory, you could generalize the evidence. Unless the opposing party calls out on your generalization, and demands specific explanation for each of the 10000 photos. Some of those could even be cat photos. Some could be random buildings. Some could be citations in Chinese.
You may find that to be unfair. However, my ability to question the relevance of evidence is limited. I can only question it in cases such as these, where source obviously contradicts the claim. As a debater, you have a task of making your case evidently supported. If I cannot find the evidence about the argument you are trying to make, I cannot treat that case same as the case of your opponent that has evidence. With all else being equal in this argument, it would be unfair to treat Pros evidence the same as Cons lack of evidence.
Every voter takes the task of weighting arguments.
However, a voter cannot just say "this evidence is irrelevant". He must provide a reason. If the evidence contradicts the claim right at the start, that is sufficient reason to mark it as irrelevant.
You say it was impossible for you to explain the relevance. However, you had 3 rounds. All you had to do was post a source that doesnt obviously contradict to your claim. Pro was able to do that, when he posted source about Mens rea.
Nowhere in the voting policy does it say that challenging the relevance of an evidence of source by a voter requires previous challenging of relevance by Con or by Pro in the debate.
The line Barney mentioned was about the reliability of a source, not about the relevance. Source can be reliable, yet unrelated to the argument.
Also, sources are supposed to contain evidence that supports the point. It says so in the voting policy. Merely repeating claims is not evidence.
This leads to conclusion that I need to read the source until I find the evidence, if I am to make sure it has the evidence that one side claimed it to have.
From debate art voting policy:
"Sources:
Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof."
Note it says relevant. Cons source neither supported his case, neither was it relevant to his argument.
"In this case, it was pro's job to read the source and find that weakness to it."
So are you implying I must accept the source as a valid support for the claim, despite that it contradicts to the claim it was supposed to support? Am I supposed to accept the claim as "supported" by a source that literally negates it?
Your argument literally:
Because Pro didnt find a flaw:
Voters must accept the source contradicting the claim as if it supported it.
Also, must weight that source as equally valid to other sources.
So where in the voting policy say that source contradicting the claim can be treated as if it supported it?
Voting policy about sources is related to sources actually supporting the claim. If the source doesnt support what the claim is saying, then voters treat the claim as unsupported by any source.
"Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented"
"If neither debater even alluded to details from a source"
Con presented "punishment for miscarriages". I studied the source within that. All I said was about the very detail Con alluded to from the source, that detail being "punishment for miscarriages".
Look at the Cons source, read it entirely, you will find:
"When she arrived at hospital seeking treatment, Poolaw admitted to using illicit drugs while pregnant.
Later, the medical examiner's report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son's liver and brain."
"I can't find said quote anywhere within this debate"
Read cons source. Its in the very report he provided.
"as it reads as not one where you fairly weighted the arguments; but rather as one where you wish you were a debater and are trying to add missing contentions to bolster a preferred side."
Where did I add anything that was not used in a debate?
"such as if the other side called attention to the flaws"
Actually, this is a special case which you didnt consider. If Con provides a source that literally contradicts the claim that he is trying to support with the source, I have no any obligation to consider that source to be supporting of his claim. The case where source contradicts the claim means either the source is wrong either the claim is wrong.
In school, I was taught there is a boy and a girl. And also that in the beginning, God created one man and one woman. They didnt teach us about a 3rd gender. I guess it wouldnt fit very well into the story.
The definition for Mens rea was given by Pro in his source. I dont want to add unmentioned definitions, because this is related to my vote. From Pros source, Mens rea is, to put it most simply: The knowledge that your actions would commit a crime. So if I know that shooting someone would be a crime, doing it would mean I would fullfil the Mens rea criteria.
Round 2 Pro:
"CON holds that the PRO position necessitates the charging of women who undergo abortions. This is not necessarily the case."
-Separation of position from punishing women. Separation of abortion ban from punishing women for abortions.
Pro then explains that in cases of abortions, women are not to be punished unless they are proven guilty under Mens rea.
The link for Mens rea says: "The knowledge that ones actions will commit a crime"
- This obviously excludes miscarriages.
Con never refuted this.
Con provided counter argument, a source that is literally correlation argument, assumption, link to someones twitter account, and much less than 1% cases. The constant reliance on these >1% cannot possibly be treated as equal to Pros arguments that are supported by definitions of law.
Have you read the Cons source entirely? This is his own source explaining the case where woman got convicted for "miscarriage". She actually got convicted for manslaughter, not for miscarriage.
Source says:
"Later, the medical examiner's report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son's liver and brain."
Is Con claiming that women who give harmful drugs to their underage children are actually not supposed to be punished? What is Cons argument here? Remember that his entire argument is linked to this source. This source is literally trying to justify drug use during pregnancy. I am sorry, but taking this "source" and Pros source as equal is unreasonable.
This is why in this argument I give advantage to Pro. Mens rea is a reasonable criteria to be applied in abortion cases. Since Con never refuted this properly, advantage was given to Pro.
Increasing consumer power doesnt make up for the increased cost of labor.
Case 1) If you have 4 dollars, and you pay a worker 2 dollars and he gives you back those 2 dollars through consumer spending, you still have just 4 dollars.
Case 2) Same if you pay a worker 4 dollars. He returns them to you through spending, and you still have 4 dollars.
Difference between these two cases is that in case 1) you have to pay 2 dollars to the worker every time.
In case 2), you have to pay 4 dollars every time. This makes it more expensive to hire workers.
I would say that such position is difficult to defend if we assume human rights should be protected. There is a state of dependency between protecting the fetus and protecting human rights. The latter cannot exist without the former. Even if you deny rights and personhood to the fetus, you cannot deny the state of dependency of human rights on the fetus.
If you say: "only the ones that are born have rights" it follows that if we want for people to have rights, we must make sure they are born.
This creates the dependency:
1)The existence of rights depends upon being born. 2)The condition to be born is to be protected as a fetus.
From this, it follows: The existence of rights depends upon protecting the fetus.
From that, it follows: To secure the existence of rights, we must protect the fetus.
Finally: Destroying the fetus destroys all human rights that depend on its existence.
This dependency implies that fetus contains personhood and human rights in some form. The fact that humanity depends upon protecting fetuses to secure its existence means fetuses are not some random cells but the very thing that enables humanitys existence.
I already covered that. The fact that abortion ban is separable from imprisoning women for miscarriages solves that problem. Also, it falls under reasonable exceptions. Pro said that. Also, it falls under 1%. To translate: Pros conditions of making abortion illegal dont allow the punishment for miscarriages.
I just weighted the arguments. Everything I used was mentioned in the debate by Pro or by Con. For example, the uncertainty argument was compared to consistency argument. Pro did say that what applies to unborn ones has to apply to born ones too. Uncertainty argument doesnt negate that in any way. In fact, the consistency argument remained unchallenged through round 1, 2 and 3. Well, to be more precise, it was ignored by Con through the entire debate.
Conclusion on debate
Con rested his entire case on structural violence, providing a definition that cant be worked with. His entire case rests on personhood, but he does not explain why people should be granted personhoods. He doesnt give us any standard other than "we cant know". He held a position of uncertainty, which made his entire case inconsistent. Con didnt explain what logic he uses to grant personhood to some, and deny it to others. The fact that he didnt use reasons there drops his entire case as flawed.
Pro recognized the need for consistency in determining personhood, and used that consistency to support his case. Hence, with such consistency he proved the personhood of a fetus. With that, the need for uphelding the rights of a fetus. With that, Pros position was upheld.
To deny Pros position, Con needed to prove that abortion ban increases number of abortions. But he admitted that its impossible to have correct number of abortions during an abortion ban. He also posted sources with contradicting informations.
Pro wins because he upheld his position and because Con didnt upheld his.
Pro wins on sources too, as Cons sources contradicted to each other and to Cons position.
Grammar and spelling were fine on both sides without any significant difference.
Conduct was good overall as there were no insults used.
Round 3 Pro:
1) Pro further explained the double standards in society
2) Explained slavery argument with refuting structural violence argument
3) Established again that there are exceptions possible, explained theft analogy as proof for the existence of exceptions in the law
4) Explained the need for criteria in determining personhood
5) Explained the need for determining whether someone has rights or not, as a condition for proper judgment
6) Repeated the point that the reason sufficient to kill an unborn child is also sufficient to kill a born child. Con never refuted this argument.
7) Pro established the difference in types of utilitarianism, hence negating the contradiction from round 2.
8)Argument of unborn children being the ones that are invisible seems to expose inconsistency in Cons case
9) Explained the need for abortion ban so that abortion cases can be dealt with properly by the law enforcement.
10) Explained that 21% increase in mortality rates means 49 deaths
11) Exposed flaw in Cons critique of laws based on technical difficulties
12) Explained that the most objective position is the one that life begins at fertilization. To contend that position would mean to cause unsolvable problems in consistency
13) Pro explains that Con has not presented any criteria for determining personhood.
14) Pro explains that Cons position is essentially that of legalizing a roulette, due to Cons uncertainty.
15) Explains that Cons scenario is 1%.
Round 3: Con
1) Con wants for us to reject Pros exceptions because Pro didnt mention them in round 1. This seems like a very unreasonable request, considering that Con had a chance to respond in round 2 and 3 when the exceptions were presented. Con didnt respond, so there is no way he wins that argument.
2) Con says that Pros use of utilitarianism means neglecting to protect individual human rights. Cons entire case, as Pro said, is based upon uncertainty of personhood that neglects rights of unborn and human rights in general.
3) Con seems to present an out of this world argument that structural violence only happens to someone if that someone is not discussed about at all. This seems like an impossible to work with definition.
4) Con attempts to attack the personhood argument as uncertain, but ignores the argument that only by giving personhood to a fetus only then we can give personhood to all humans.
5) Con claims that he uses an existing legal standard for granting rights. He doesnt explain why such standard is any good. He doesnt explain the justification for why such standard doesnt give rights to unborn children.
Pro already made an argument that denying rights to unborn denies rights to everyone.
Con never refuted this argument. Con took position of uncertainty on personhood. However, there doesnt seem to be an explanation by Con as to why giving rights to born ones and denying rights to unborn ones is justified if personhood is uncertain in both cases.
6) Con again claims that his sources show that abortions will not decrease after abortion ban. However, some of his own sources in round 1 and 2 negated this.
7) Con seems to imply that Pro has reduced the list of unjustified reasons for abortion to only two. However, it is clear that Pro stated in round 1 that almost all are unjustified. Pro has even explained why they are unjustified. They wouldnt apply to born children. Con never refuted this.
8) Con again admits the effects abortion ban will have on mothers who kill their unborn children.
9) Con repeats again the argument of reproductive coercion. It was already taken into account. See comment about round 1 and 2.
Yes, I agree. Minimum wage is not the magic solution that will fix everything. In fact, its not a good solution at all due to the problems it causes. Applying it to areas with high unemployment would devastate small buisnesses and we would have to rely on big companies to cover that.
Raising the wage does work to increase the wealth of the workers if there isnt enough money circulating in the economy to allow raising prices. If there isnt too much money being printed, its certain that raising minimum wage cannot result in increase of prices enough to negate it.
However, it does decrease profits, make buisnesses more expensive, workers less desirable...ect.
Round 2 Pro
1) Pro provided working link about the beginning of life
2) Establised the definition of balance
3) Established the difference between banning abortion and banning medical services, established that one does not have to include the other, established reasonable exceptions
4) Re-stated the need for criteria
5) Found contradiction in Cons case: Con claimed that the beginning of personhood is unknown. However, Cons case depends entirely on personhood.
6) Established when human beings come into existence
7) Established the harms of abortion
8) Established that women are in most cases responsible for getting pregnant, hence at fault for their condition
9) Repeated that the immorality of killing an unborn child is the sufficient reason to make it illegal
10) Provided sources which seem to indicate a decrease in reported cases of abortions during abortion ban
11) Established the connection between rights of born and unborn child
12) Refutes Cons structural violence argument by its applicability to killing of born children
13) Slavery comparison argument shows that argument of reducing harm can be used to justify slavery.
14) Argued that reproductive coercion is separable from abortion ban, hence is not caused by it
15) Proves inconsistencies in self managed abortion argument
16) Proves inconsistencies in argument of overburdening the medical system
17) Argues that abortion ban is separable from the punishment of miscarriages, hence latter not caused by the former.
Round 2 Con:
1) Con negates their need to disprove the personhood of a fetus
2)Claims that Pros case is utilitarian,
3) Makes argument that structural violence holds higher weight than anything else
4) Makes the argument that abortion ban harms the needs of the many
5) Repeats the causation of structural violence by abortion ban
6) Con finds contradiction in one of Pros arguments: reliance on utilitarianism while rejecting utilitarianism
7) Con seems to imply that legalizing abortions decreases number of abortions. For this he provides a source. However, his source says how abortions decreased in only half of countries, 10 out of 20 countries. This places doubt on proposed causation.
8) Cons source in round 2 about women still looking for abortion after abortion ban seems to contradict to his sources in round 1. See round 1: Con.
9) Con uses utilitarian argument combined with structural violence argument to deny theft analogy and make difference between theft banning and abortion banning. However, in his argument of structural violence Con doesnt seem to include violence done to unborn children.
10) If personhood of a fetus is proven: Cons entire position depends on proving that abortion ban will not decrease the number of abortions but increase them. See 7). However, Con marked the beginning of personhood as uncertain. This makes the personhood of every human uncertain, making Cons position depend upon assumptions.
11) Con claims that Pro never explained why reasons for abortions are unjustified. But Pro did mention consistency, applicability to born children.
12) Con claims lack of funds created by abortions will strip reproductive care in general. However, there doesnt seem to be an explanation by Con as to why abortions are the only way to fund reproductive care.
13) There doesnt seem to be an explanation by Con as to why abortion is the only way to solve structural violence
14) Con made a confusing claim: "Pro is granting new legal protections to a large set of humans who currently dont have them, and, in many cases, might not be born into this world alive.".
"Might not be born alive" doesnt mean "will not be born alive". It is very unclear what is Cons argument here.
In round 1 and 2, Con admitted that due to abortion ban, abortions will be more expensive, more difficult to get and more risky.
In round 2, Cons position became much more uncertain as he extended a position of uncertainty on personhood to round 2. This places Cons entire moral system used in this debate under serious inconsistency.
Notice that Pros position does not depend on abortion ban reducing the number of abortions. Uphelding the rights of unborn children and uphelding consistency is also Pros position. To disprove Pros position, Con would need to prove that abortion ban increases number of abortions, which Con didnt yet prove through round 1 and 2.
Round one: Con
1) Cons first argument is structural violence, where as part of the explanation he lists unequal life chances and reproductive coercion.
This is already negated by the Pro: "4) Consistency, 5) human rights of an unborn child, 6) Unjustified killing"
There doesnt seem to be a way for Con to explain how the presence of violence justifies the killing of an unborn child who bears no guilt for that violence. See "Source 3 legal certainty"
2) Cons argument about miscarriages sounds valid. Will be analyzed with round 2.
3) Patient provider relationships argument at the end seems to claim that abortion ban will harm the aborted fetus.
Cons sources seem to imply that because of abortion ban, some women will be forced to give birth. This translates to that thanks to abortion ban, there will be less abortions.
Same is implied in his argument about coerced reproduction.
4) Self managed abortions argument is where Con starts to argue in favor of Pro.
Con admits that abortion ban will achieve the effect of punishment for women who kill their unborn children. Abortion ban will not only make it more difficult and more expensive for women to kill their unborn children, it will also punish them for killing their unborn children.
5) Base risk argument is refuted by Pro:" 4) Consistency, 5) Human rights of a fetus, 6) Unjustified killing"
From Cons point of view, making abortions unsafe is an unjustified punishment for mothers who kill their own unborn children. The Cons arguments seem to refute themselves there.
6) No exceptions argument is where Con assumed that Pro makes no exceptions to any case of abortion because Pro didnt mention exceptions in round 1.
7) Overburdening the medical system is where Con gives one source.
However, Con draws a conclusion:
"Many of the children carried to term will be born with..."
But his source says it differently:
"...will see more babies, including some with substantial medical needs..."
Con turned the word "some" into "many". Seems like a claim with no actual numbers behind it. How much is "some"?
Also, Cons source argues against some of Cons later points:
"People who cant travel for care or manage their own abortions, will give birth. Recent unpublished updates to older estimates - from economist Caitlin Myers and other researchers - are that 18 to 57% of women deciding to end a pregnancy in counties where travel distance for abortion care increase will give birth. This estimate translates to a 5 - 17% increase in births in Michigan."
So by Cons own source, there will be less abortions if abortion ban takes place.
Finally, Cons argument seems to be that mothers killing their unborn children is good because it prevents overcrowded hospitals.
Such argument is already refuted by Pro: "4) Consistency, 5) human rights of a fetus, 6) Unjustified killing"
8) Punishing miscarriages argument seems to be solid. I will get back to it with round 2.
9) Case conclusions by Con
Con doesnt make a reasonable difference between justified and unjustified harm. For example, he insists that it is unjustified to punish mothers who kill their unborn children.
10) Cons rebuttals where Con says "...is only meaningful if said policy is effective"
Here, I need to remind everyone that Cons own sources claimed abortion ban will increase birth rates, decrease abortions and punish women who kill their unborn children.
See 4), 7).
11) Con further claims "The beginnings of personhood do not influence my case"
Further:
"Any stage of development...is only distinguished by the "inconsequential differences"."
This is already resolved by Pro: "4) Consistency (consistency, inconsistency, application to born humans)"
12) Con claims that harms from allowing abortions are "uncertain".
Cons sources have given some data on this "uncertainty":
A) Banning abortion increases birth rates and the number of abortions. See 7). From this, it goes to say allowing abortion decreases birth rates and increases the number of abortions.
B) Banning abortions punishes mothers who kill their unborn children. See 4). From this, it goes that allowing abortions means mothers will be unpunished for killing their unborn children.
C) Banning abortion will make it more expensive and risky to kill an unborn child. See 7). From this, it goes to say that allowing abortion will make it less expensive and less risky to kill an unborn child.
These are Cons sources arguing against Con. All arguments in 12) are Cons own arguments posted by him in round 1.
13) Unjustified killing rebuttal from Con. See Pro: "4) Consistency"
This is just round 1. I have to say, more work than I expected. Characters limit doesnt help either.
Round one: Pro
1) Personhood defined
2) Con needs to argue that fetus is not a person in order to prove that abortion is not killing of a person
3) Pro defends the personhood of a fetus claiming its not affected by its location, dependency or development.
Pro points out the flaw of standards.
4) The important next line is about consistency. The criteria for determining moral value has to be consistent. Inconsistency is the manifestation of unfairness. This is basically argument which Pro uses to say that inconsistency exists, and that argument which negates the rights of unborn children also negates the rights of born children and humans.
5) Pro claims that all human beings who have been concepted should have human rights, otherwise a contradiction will follow.
6) Unjustified killing argument seems to be the core of Pros argument. Person needs a very strong reason that justifies the killing of an unborn child. Such reason should never be applicable to born humans.
7) Pro points out inconsistencies in standards
Sources:
Source 1 saying that anything connected to the rights and justice has a positive substantive values.
Source 2 about consistency being vital in making fairness of the law.
Source 3 about legal certainty confirms the lack of guilt of an unborn child.
Source 4 about biologists - doesnt work
Source 5 about reasons for abortion seem to be providing us with a list of reasons why mothers kill their unborn children. Con would have to prove why any of those reasons is sufficient to kill a child. Hard task indeed.
Well, it seems to me that Con is just terribly inconsistent.
He claims:
1) number of abortions will not decrease
2) due to ban, some women will be unable to abort and will be forced to give birth.
These two already contradict each other.
Con spent a lot of the debate making claims of coerced reproduction, claiming that some women will be denied abortion and be forced to give birth in case of abortion ban. If some women will be unable to abort because of abortion ban, that means abortion ban saved their children from being killed and allowed them to live. In other words: decreased the number of abortions.
Con also claims that a woman has a right to kill her child to escape the abuse she experiences. I cant see any logic there.
Pro argues that banning abortions will decrease the number of abortions.
Con argues that banning abortions will punish the mothers who kill their own children.
Cons arguments seem to be self defeating.
I will read the debate again later to see if I can make a better conclusion with more detailed explanation, and then maybe vote on it.
"Do you also honestly believe the North Korean government doesn't engage in sex trafficking?"
I see. That is a very good argument. Whats the source? Twitter?
Sorry, who are you? And why is your education important to me?
I have other debates to work on. My task here is done.
"it clearly does discuss miscarriage"
No. I already explained. I explained 50 times. Wont repeat 50 more times just because you dont get it.
Just to clarify, there is no starvation in North Korea. Thats american lie which they spinned around since 1990.
"Again imagine you're in a biblical debate (of course citing the bible for some point) and a voter does their own research"
Voting policy clearly says voters have full right to deny the relevance of the source should they find that one side lied about what was in their source.
Same with your example of Bible. If you claim how Bible says that humans were once fish and to support this you randomly post link to Bibles Genesis 1 claiming it contains evidence for your claim, I as a voter will 1) look at your link, 2) establish that you obviously lied, 3) reject the relevance of your link to your claim. All according to the voting policy.
There is no child porn in North Korea. Is that why you hate it? Because they can achieve what no one else can?
I dont know what are you talking about. No side used starvation as the definition of best. If they did, I would counter it easily.
Big military sounds like a waste when comparing it to just one other country. While North Korea has a bigger military than that of USA, it doesnt have bigger military than that of NATO alliance combined with South Korea. NATO alliance has over 3 million troops. South Korea has 6.7 million troops. In total, thats 10 million troops. North Korea has 7.7 million troops. So in case of war, NATO plus South Korea would have slight advantage in numbers.
While nuclear weapons would wipe out most of USA, South Korea, and NATOs military capabilities, there is a chance that their troops cross North Koreans territory.
Remember that North Korea also has 2 sides of its country open to the sea. This makes it possible to almost surround North Korea and invade its territory.
In this scenario, North Korea would be forced to either use nuclear weapons on its own territory, or use military troops to respond.
Military troops are a better option, because saving nuclear weapons to be used on USA, NATO and South Korea sounds better.
Military in North Korea is not an ordinary military. Their military helps citizens during floods, helps repair the damage, relocates resources, guard borders so that no surprise attack happens...
Having less military would greatly reduce North Koreas chances of fighting on its own territory.
"If an argument wasn't made by a debater "
Argument was made by a source presented by a debater.
Are you saying sources arent part of the debate?
If you say they are only part of the debate when mentioned by debaters: Con mentioned that his source contains evidence. If Cons source obviously doesnt contain evidence, I as a voter will treat Cons claim as unsupported.
If there is no evidence in the source, if the source merely repeats the claim, if the source contradicts the claim, then the relevance of the source drops.
This isnt about adding arguments. This is about accepting Cons source as relevant evidence for his claim.
Judgement was made based upon what Con said and the evidence his source presented.
1) Again, you are making the argument that Con should be rewarded for not providing any evidence for his claim.
2) You are making the argument that the obvious lack of evidence for the claim is the evidence for the claim.
3) You are saying I should ignore evidence in Cons source that contradicts Cons claim and instead accept the repetition of a claim as evidence for the claim.
Please tell me, which part of voting policy says that repetition of the claim(circular reasoning) is a relevant evidence for that claim?
You are saying I have no right to question relevance of such claim. Since you probably read the voting policy, you probably read this:
"The one exception where it is acceptable to do this would be a situation in which the voter notices one side blatantly lying about what is present in their source (even if that criticism wasn’t brought up by the opponent)."
This is directly related to what you copied to your argument from the voting policy. Apparently, the voting policy allows me to judge Cons claim of presence of evidence in the source, when there isnt such evidence but actually contradictory evidence present in the source.
There isnt even an implied warrant present in Cons case. Source negates his claim at the very start.
If the source is irrelevant, I cannot treat it as relevant. That would be a contradiction and a nonsense.
"Sources is how the debaters (not the voter) utilized and analyzed them."
If Con provides a source that negates his own claim, I will not accept that source as anything else but exactly that.
Do you say I should accept the source as it said the opposite of what it said?
That is what you are saying.
Again, I did not add the arguments. Instead I used facts Con provided in his own source to make a judgement.
I already explained this 50 times. Weighting sources and claims is not me adding arguments of my own.
Will you post those same arguments tommorow too? You have been posting same refuted arguments for 3 days now.
Downgrading personal choice to logical evaluation based on someone elses standards and not the standards of the person making the choice negates the point of personal choice.
Sure, there may be benefits to having children. There may be downsides. Its really up to the person to estimate what he or she prefer.
You could say that not having offspring is equal to murdering your offspring due to results being the same. But thats just the problem with consistency in societys morality and not the problem of the person itself.
"you personally dislike con's argument so wrote refutations"
I didnt write refutations. I used what was provided in Cons source to make a judgment.
Judgment was based upon using only those facts provided by the Cons source. I didnt add arguments of my own. Merely weighted the existing ones.
Refuting arguments in debates? No, that is oromagis area.
"convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage"
This is a contradiction. I already explained this.
"The page goes on explicitly state "miscarriage" like a dozen times."
Sorry, do you know what evidence is? Repeating something a dozen times is not evidence. Otherwise, I would just repeat every claim a dozen times and prove you wrong
The source itself later said:
"Convicted for manslaughter"
"Used illegal drugs"
"Drugs found in unborn sons brain and liver"
This is obviously not miscarriage. Manslaughter means she holds liability to what happened. Miscarriage means holding no liability.
Maybe you want me to accept source as valid evidence without even clicking on it? Is that what you usually do?
"Pro did not mention anything from the medical examiner"
"nor did Con"
Medical examiner was presented in Cons source. Do I have to say it 100 times?
Con mentioned that his source contains evidence of punishment for miscarriages.
I clicked on the source.
Right at the start of a source, it says "manslaughter". Hence, not miscarriage.
Notice that when you post a source and you are claiming it contains a fact which it doesnt, you are contradicting yourself and using irrelevant source.
I as a voter have every right to dismiss such irrelevant source.
You are just repeating the same points I refuted yesterday.
Like, what did you think would happen if you spam same refuted points over and over?
I already responded to those exact arguments multiple times.
"Not presented or alluded"
Are you saying Con didnt present a source that contains facts? Are you saying Con never alluded to the facts from the source?
About the miscarriage:
You didnt make any argument here. Apparently, you didnt bother to read my argument about the difference between manslaughter and miscarriage. By definition, these two are mutually exclusive. This means miscarriage can never be manslaughter.
Also, you are mentioning how I added something not presented by anyone, something that was more than just judgment?
Are you actually claiming Con didnt present his source nor alluded to it?
Well, then we disagree.
"This isn’t about adding judgement. It’s about inserting points that weren’t made by the debaters into the debate."
If judgment itself is not the inserted point, then my judgment of your source was not an inserted point in any way. It was judgement.
"You’re effectively punishing me for something you did that my opponent neglected to do. "
I could turn this and say that you are being punished for something that you neglected to do when making claims. That something is providing the actual evidence.
Also, every vote is adding its own judgment to the debate. Merely attributing points does that. So if judgment is the same as intervening, then every vote does that. If judgment is not intervening, then I cant be accussed of intervening. All I did was judge based on what was presented.
I didnt need to"dig into a source" to find a contradiction. I simply clicked on it. Right at the start it contradicted the very point you made.
Also, source must contain evidence. If your source doesnt contain evidence right at the start, I have to read more of it to make sure there is evidence in it.
Should I just read the beginning? Beginning contradicts to the point you made.
Should I not click on the source at all? Then I cant know it actually has evidence or not.
So what am I supposed to do? Not read sources? Read just the beginning? Ignore the fact that source doesnt support the claim?
Thats actually just if rules of the debate say so.
What if the debate only has 1 round? Even if thats not the case, what if Con posts 10000 pictures of cats in round 1, demanding rebuttal for every single one picture specifically, then posts another 10000 in round 2, then another 10000 in round 3? Pro cant say they are all irrelevant unless he looked at each one, described what it contained, and provided rebuttal.
Notice the possible trap here. Con can post 10000 cat pictures, and among them having one thats actually not a cat picture but has the evidence.
So Pro says: Those are just cat pictures.
Then in the round before the last, Con says: I provided evidence. Not all are cat pictures. You didnt refute. Its in the picture number 6875. Dropped.
If we have to ignore the rebuttals in the last round, Pro cant respond with rebuttal to the picture number 6875.
So it follows that Pro would be in a very difficult position.
But then again, why would life be fair.
As a voter, I do have a right to weight the arguments and relevance of sources based on what was presented in them.
How do I weight the arguments? Most importantly, by seeing whether there is a contradiction within them, or to the position they are supposed to support. Then I am weighting that to the other debaters arguments, seeing which one supports the positions in question and which one is negated by some other argument.
Sources are supposed to be the evidence for the argument. If source itself doesnt provide supporting evidence, but merely repeats the claim or contradicts it, then it is the same as if there was no source provided.
You claimed that your source contained the evidence of punishing women for miscarriages. However, when I clicked on the source, it literally said 1)"convicted for manslaughter", 2)"used illegal drugs during pregnancy", 3)"drug found in her unborn sons brain and liver".
Manslaughter and miscarriage are mutually exclusive terms, hence contradicting each other. As there was no evidence of miscarriage, I had to place in question the relevance of the evidence.
Notice that you did not, anywhere in the debate, explain how miscarriage is manslaughter.
Pros source, Mens rea, literally negates the claim that it is possible to be legally prosecuted for miscarriage.
So for that debate, my vote would be like: "Since Con supported his claim with 10000 cat pictures in the last round, and since Pro couldnt respond to that as it was the last round, Con wins the sources and the debate."?
Imagine a situation where as a voter you are forced to take cat pictures as valid evidence, and weight that against the actual evidence as if they both supported the claim.
While this scenario is unlikely to happen, one must make sure that all similar scenarios give voters the ability to question the relevance of evidence.
Of course, a voter must present a good reason to question the evidence using only what was presented in evidence itself or debate.
Yes, in theory, you could generalize the evidence. Unless the opposing party calls out on your generalization, and demands specific explanation for each of the 10000 photos. Some of those could even be cat photos. Some could be random buildings. Some could be citations in Chinese.
You could post 10000 such photos and unless Con calls out on each one specifically, they are to be accepted as valid evidence for the claim.
You may find that to be unfair. However, my ability to question the relevance of evidence is limited. I can only question it in cases such as these, where source obviously contradicts the claim. As a debater, you have a task of making your case evidently supported. If I cannot find the evidence about the argument you are trying to make, I cannot treat that case same as the case of your opponent that has evidence. With all else being equal in this argument, it would be unfair to treat Pros evidence the same as Cons lack of evidence.
Every voter takes the task of weighting arguments.
However, a voter cannot just say "this evidence is irrelevant". He must provide a reason. If the evidence contradicts the claim right at the start, that is sufficient reason to mark it as irrelevant.
You say it was impossible for you to explain the relevance. However, you had 3 rounds. All you had to do was post a source that doesnt obviously contradict to your claim. Pro was able to do that, when he posted source about Mens rea.
Nowhere in the voting policy does it say that challenging the relevance of an evidence of source by a voter requires previous challenging of relevance by Con or by Pro in the debate.
The line Barney mentioned was about the reliability of a source, not about the relevance. Source can be reliable, yet unrelated to the argument.
Also, sources are supposed to contain evidence that supports the point. It says so in the voting policy. Merely repeating claims is not evidence.
This leads to conclusion that I need to read the source until I find the evidence, if I am to make sure it has the evidence that one side claimed it to have.
Are we reading the same policy?
From debate art voting policy:
"Sources:
Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof."
Note it says relevant. Cons source neither supported his case, neither was it relevant to his argument.
"In this case, it was pro's job to read the source and find that weakness to it."
So are you implying I must accept the source as a valid support for the claim, despite that it contradicts to the claim it was supposed to support? Am I supposed to accept the claim as "supported" by a source that literally negates it?
Your argument literally:
Because Pro didnt find a flaw:
Voters must accept the source contradicting the claim as if it supported it.
Also, must weight that source as equally valid to other sources.
So where in the voting policy say that source contradicting the claim can be treated as if it supported it?
Voting policy about sources is related to sources actually supporting the claim. If the source doesnt support what the claim is saying, then voters treat the claim as unsupported by any source.
"Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented"
"If neither debater even alluded to details from a source"
Con presented "punishment for miscarriages". I studied the source within that. All I said was about the very detail Con alluded to from the source, that detail being "punishment for miscarriages".
Look at the Cons source, read it entirely, you will find:
"When she arrived at hospital seeking treatment, Poolaw admitted to using illicit drugs while pregnant.
Later, the medical examiner's report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son's liver and brain."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
This is the source Con used to support his claim of punishing miscarriages. In it, you will find what I talked about.
"I can't find said quote anywhere within this debate"
Read cons source. Its in the very report he provided.
"as it reads as not one where you fairly weighted the arguments; but rather as one where you wish you were a debater and are trying to add missing contentions to bolster a preferred side."
Where did I add anything that was not used in a debate?
"such as if the other side called attention to the flaws"
Actually, this is a special case which you didnt consider. If Con provides a source that literally contradicts the claim that he is trying to support with the source, I have no any obligation to consider that source to be supporting of his claim. The case where source contradicts the claim means either the source is wrong either the claim is wrong.
In school, I was taught there is a boy and a girl. And also that in the beginning, God created one man and one woman. They didnt teach us about a 3rd gender. I guess it wouldnt fit very well into the story.
The definition for Mens rea was given by Pro in his source. I dont want to add unmentioned definitions, because this is related to my vote. From Pros source, Mens rea is, to put it most simply: The knowledge that your actions would commit a crime. So if I know that shooting someone would be a crime, doing it would mean I would fullfil the Mens rea criteria.
Fine. Make it 3 days, and I will accept.
Time for argument is one day? Make it at least one week and I will accept
Round 2 Pro:
"CON holds that the PRO position necessitates the charging of women who undergo abortions. This is not necessarily the case."
-Separation of position from punishing women. Separation of abortion ban from punishing women for abortions.
Pro then explains that in cases of abortions, women are not to be punished unless they are proven guilty under Mens rea.
The link for Mens rea says: "The knowledge that ones actions will commit a crime"
- This obviously excludes miscarriages.
Con never refuted this.
Con provided counter argument, a source that is literally correlation argument, assumption, link to someones twitter account, and much less than 1% cases. The constant reliance on these >1% cannot possibly be treated as equal to Pros arguments that are supported by definitions of law.
Have you read the Cons source entirely? This is his own source explaining the case where woman got convicted for "miscarriage". She actually got convicted for manslaughter, not for miscarriage.
Source says:
"Later, the medical examiner's report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son's liver and brain."
Is Con claiming that women who give harmful drugs to their underage children are actually not supposed to be punished? What is Cons argument here? Remember that his entire argument is linked to this source. This source is literally trying to justify drug use during pregnancy. I am sorry, but taking this "source" and Pros source as equal is unreasonable.
This is why in this argument I give advantage to Pro. Mens rea is a reasonable criteria to be applied in abortion cases. Since Con never refuted this properly, advantage was given to Pro.
Increasing consumer power doesnt make up for the increased cost of labor.
Case 1) If you have 4 dollars, and you pay a worker 2 dollars and he gives you back those 2 dollars through consumer spending, you still have just 4 dollars.
Case 2) Same if you pay a worker 4 dollars. He returns them to you through spending, and you still have 4 dollars.
Difference between these two cases is that in case 1) you have to pay 2 dollars to the worker every time.
In case 2), you have to pay 4 dollars every time. This makes it more expensive to hire workers.
And what should I use instead? American propaganda? No thanks.
I would say that such position is difficult to defend if we assume human rights should be protected. There is a state of dependency between protecting the fetus and protecting human rights. The latter cannot exist without the former. Even if you deny rights and personhood to the fetus, you cannot deny the state of dependency of human rights on the fetus.
If you say: "only the ones that are born have rights" it follows that if we want for people to have rights, we must make sure they are born.
This creates the dependency:
1)The existence of rights depends upon being born. 2)The condition to be born is to be protected as a fetus.
From this, it follows: The existence of rights depends upon protecting the fetus.
From that, it follows: To secure the existence of rights, we must protect the fetus.
Finally: Destroying the fetus destroys all human rights that depend on its existence.
This dependency implies that fetus contains personhood and human rights in some form. The fact that humanity depends upon protecting fetuses to secure its existence means fetuses are not some random cells but the very thing that enables humanitys existence.
I already covered that. The fact that abortion ban is separable from imprisoning women for miscarriages solves that problem. Also, it falls under reasonable exceptions. Pro said that. Also, it falls under 1%. To translate: Pros conditions of making abortion illegal dont allow the punishment for miscarriages.
I just weighted the arguments. Everything I used was mentioned in the debate by Pro or by Con. For example, the uncertainty argument was compared to consistency argument. Pro did say that what applies to unborn ones has to apply to born ones too. Uncertainty argument doesnt negate that in any way. In fact, the consistency argument remained unchallenged through round 1, 2 and 3. Well, to be more precise, it was ignored by Con through the entire debate.
Conclusion on debate
Con rested his entire case on structural violence, providing a definition that cant be worked with. His entire case rests on personhood, but he does not explain why people should be granted personhoods. He doesnt give us any standard other than "we cant know". He held a position of uncertainty, which made his entire case inconsistent. Con didnt explain what logic he uses to grant personhood to some, and deny it to others. The fact that he didnt use reasons there drops his entire case as flawed.
Pro recognized the need for consistency in determining personhood, and used that consistency to support his case. Hence, with such consistency he proved the personhood of a fetus. With that, the need for uphelding the rights of a fetus. With that, Pros position was upheld.
To deny Pros position, Con needed to prove that abortion ban increases number of abortions. But he admitted that its impossible to have correct number of abortions during an abortion ban. He also posted sources with contradicting informations.
Pro wins because he upheld his position and because Con didnt upheld his.
Pro wins on sources too, as Cons sources contradicted to each other and to Cons position.
Grammar and spelling were fine on both sides without any significant difference.
Conduct was good overall as there were no insults used.
Round 3 Pro:
1) Pro further explained the double standards in society
2) Explained slavery argument with refuting structural violence argument
3) Established again that there are exceptions possible, explained theft analogy as proof for the existence of exceptions in the law
4) Explained the need for criteria in determining personhood
5) Explained the need for determining whether someone has rights or not, as a condition for proper judgment
6) Repeated the point that the reason sufficient to kill an unborn child is also sufficient to kill a born child. Con never refuted this argument.
7) Pro established the difference in types of utilitarianism, hence negating the contradiction from round 2.
8)Argument of unborn children being the ones that are invisible seems to expose inconsistency in Cons case
9) Explained the need for abortion ban so that abortion cases can be dealt with properly by the law enforcement.
10) Explained that 21% increase in mortality rates means 49 deaths
11) Exposed flaw in Cons critique of laws based on technical difficulties
12) Explained that the most objective position is the one that life begins at fertilization. To contend that position would mean to cause unsolvable problems in consistency
13) Pro explains that Con has not presented any criteria for determining personhood.
14) Pro explains that Cons position is essentially that of legalizing a roulette, due to Cons uncertainty.
15) Explains that Cons scenario is 1%.
Round 3: Con
1) Con wants for us to reject Pros exceptions because Pro didnt mention them in round 1. This seems like a very unreasonable request, considering that Con had a chance to respond in round 2 and 3 when the exceptions were presented. Con didnt respond, so there is no way he wins that argument.
2) Con says that Pros use of utilitarianism means neglecting to protect individual human rights. Cons entire case, as Pro said, is based upon uncertainty of personhood that neglects rights of unborn and human rights in general.
3) Con seems to present an out of this world argument that structural violence only happens to someone if that someone is not discussed about at all. This seems like an impossible to work with definition.
4) Con attempts to attack the personhood argument as uncertain, but ignores the argument that only by giving personhood to a fetus only then we can give personhood to all humans.
5) Con claims that he uses an existing legal standard for granting rights. He doesnt explain why such standard is any good. He doesnt explain the justification for why such standard doesnt give rights to unborn children.
Pro already made an argument that denying rights to unborn denies rights to everyone.
Con never refuted this argument. Con took position of uncertainty on personhood. However, there doesnt seem to be an explanation by Con as to why giving rights to born ones and denying rights to unborn ones is justified if personhood is uncertain in both cases.
6) Con again claims that his sources show that abortions will not decrease after abortion ban. However, some of his own sources in round 1 and 2 negated this.
7) Con seems to imply that Pro has reduced the list of unjustified reasons for abortion to only two. However, it is clear that Pro stated in round 1 that almost all are unjustified. Pro has even explained why they are unjustified. They wouldnt apply to born children. Con never refuted this.
8) Con again admits the effects abortion ban will have on mothers who kill their unborn children.
9) Con repeats again the argument of reproductive coercion. It was already taken into account. See comment about round 1 and 2.
Yes, I agree. Minimum wage is not the magic solution that will fix everything. In fact, its not a good solution at all due to the problems it causes. Applying it to areas with high unemployment would devastate small buisnesses and we would have to rely on big companies to cover that.
Raising the wage does work to increase the wealth of the workers if there isnt enough money circulating in the economy to allow raising prices. If there isnt too much money being printed, its certain that raising minimum wage cannot result in increase of prices enough to negate it.
However, it does decrease profits, make buisnesses more expensive, workers less desirable...ect.
Round 2 Pro
1) Pro provided working link about the beginning of life
2) Establised the definition of balance
3) Established the difference between banning abortion and banning medical services, established that one does not have to include the other, established reasonable exceptions
4) Re-stated the need for criteria
5) Found contradiction in Cons case: Con claimed that the beginning of personhood is unknown. However, Cons case depends entirely on personhood.
6) Established when human beings come into existence
7) Established the harms of abortion
8) Established that women are in most cases responsible for getting pregnant, hence at fault for their condition
9) Repeated that the immorality of killing an unborn child is the sufficient reason to make it illegal
10) Provided sources which seem to indicate a decrease in reported cases of abortions during abortion ban
11) Established the connection between rights of born and unborn child
12) Refutes Cons structural violence argument by its applicability to killing of born children
13) Slavery comparison argument shows that argument of reducing harm can be used to justify slavery.
14) Argued that reproductive coercion is separable from abortion ban, hence is not caused by it
15) Proves inconsistencies in self managed abortion argument
16) Proves inconsistencies in argument of overburdening the medical system
17) Argues that abortion ban is separable from the punishment of miscarriages, hence latter not caused by the former.
Round 2 Con:
1) Con negates their need to disprove the personhood of a fetus
2)Claims that Pros case is utilitarian,
3) Makes argument that structural violence holds higher weight than anything else
4) Makes the argument that abortion ban harms the needs of the many
5) Repeats the causation of structural violence by abortion ban
6) Con finds contradiction in one of Pros arguments: reliance on utilitarianism while rejecting utilitarianism
7) Con seems to imply that legalizing abortions decreases number of abortions. For this he provides a source. However, his source says how abortions decreased in only half of countries, 10 out of 20 countries. This places doubt on proposed causation.
8) Cons source in round 2 about women still looking for abortion after abortion ban seems to contradict to his sources in round 1. See round 1: Con.
9) Con uses utilitarian argument combined with structural violence argument to deny theft analogy and make difference between theft banning and abortion banning. However, in his argument of structural violence Con doesnt seem to include violence done to unborn children.
10) If personhood of a fetus is proven: Cons entire position depends on proving that abortion ban will not decrease the number of abortions but increase them. See 7). However, Con marked the beginning of personhood as uncertain. This makes the personhood of every human uncertain, making Cons position depend upon assumptions.
11) Con claims that Pro never explained why reasons for abortions are unjustified. But Pro did mention consistency, applicability to born children.
12) Con claims lack of funds created by abortions will strip reproductive care in general. However, there doesnt seem to be an explanation by Con as to why abortions are the only way to fund reproductive care.
13) There doesnt seem to be an explanation by Con as to why abortion is the only way to solve structural violence
14) Con made a confusing claim: "Pro is granting new legal protections to a large set of humans who currently dont have them, and, in many cases, might not be born into this world alive.".
"Might not be born alive" doesnt mean "will not be born alive". It is very unclear what is Cons argument here.
In round 1 and 2, Con admitted that due to abortion ban, abortions will be more expensive, more difficult to get and more risky.
In round 2, Cons position became much more uncertain as he extended a position of uncertainty on personhood to round 2. This places Cons entire moral system used in this debate under serious inconsistency.
Notice that Pros position does not depend on abortion ban reducing the number of abortions. Uphelding the rights of unborn children and uphelding consistency is also Pros position. To disprove Pros position, Con would need to prove that abortion ban increases number of abortions, which Con didnt yet prove through round 1 and 2.
Round one: Con
1) Cons first argument is structural violence, where as part of the explanation he lists unequal life chances and reproductive coercion.
This is already negated by the Pro: "4) Consistency, 5) human rights of an unborn child, 6) Unjustified killing"
There doesnt seem to be a way for Con to explain how the presence of violence justifies the killing of an unborn child who bears no guilt for that violence. See "Source 3 legal certainty"
2) Cons argument about miscarriages sounds valid. Will be analyzed with round 2.
3) Patient provider relationships argument at the end seems to claim that abortion ban will harm the aborted fetus.
Cons sources seem to imply that because of abortion ban, some women will be forced to give birth. This translates to that thanks to abortion ban, there will be less abortions.
Same is implied in his argument about coerced reproduction.
4) Self managed abortions argument is where Con starts to argue in favor of Pro.
Con admits that abortion ban will achieve the effect of punishment for women who kill their unborn children. Abortion ban will not only make it more difficult and more expensive for women to kill their unborn children, it will also punish them for killing their unborn children.
5) Base risk argument is refuted by Pro:" 4) Consistency, 5) Human rights of a fetus, 6) Unjustified killing"
From Cons point of view, making abortions unsafe is an unjustified punishment for mothers who kill their own unborn children. The Cons arguments seem to refute themselves there.
6) No exceptions argument is where Con assumed that Pro makes no exceptions to any case of abortion because Pro didnt mention exceptions in round 1.
7) Overburdening the medical system is where Con gives one source.
However, Con draws a conclusion:
"Many of the children carried to term will be born with..."
But his source says it differently:
"...will see more babies, including some with substantial medical needs..."
Con turned the word "some" into "many". Seems like a claim with no actual numbers behind it. How much is "some"?
Also, Cons source argues against some of Cons later points:
"People who cant travel for care or manage their own abortions, will give birth. Recent unpublished updates to older estimates - from economist Caitlin Myers and other researchers - are that 18 to 57% of women deciding to end a pregnancy in counties where travel distance for abortion care increase will give birth. This estimate translates to a 5 - 17% increase in births in Michigan."
So by Cons own source, there will be less abortions if abortion ban takes place.
Finally, Cons argument seems to be that mothers killing their unborn children is good because it prevents overcrowded hospitals.
Such argument is already refuted by Pro: "4) Consistency, 5) human rights of a fetus, 6) Unjustified killing"
8) Punishing miscarriages argument seems to be solid. I will get back to it with round 2.
9) Case conclusions by Con
Con doesnt make a reasonable difference between justified and unjustified harm. For example, he insists that it is unjustified to punish mothers who kill their unborn children.
10) Cons rebuttals where Con says "...is only meaningful if said policy is effective"
Here, I need to remind everyone that Cons own sources claimed abortion ban will increase birth rates, decrease abortions and punish women who kill their unborn children.
See 4), 7).
11) Con further claims "The beginnings of personhood do not influence my case"
Further:
"Any stage of development...is only distinguished by the "inconsequential differences"."
This is already resolved by Pro: "4) Consistency (consistency, inconsistency, application to born humans)"
12) Con claims that harms from allowing abortions are "uncertain".
Cons sources have given some data on this "uncertainty":
A) Banning abortion increases birth rates and the number of abortions. See 7). From this, it goes to say allowing abortion decreases birth rates and increases the number of abortions.
B) Banning abortions punishes mothers who kill their unborn children. See 4). From this, it goes that allowing abortions means mothers will be unpunished for killing their unborn children.
C) Banning abortion will make it more expensive and risky to kill an unborn child. See 7). From this, it goes to say that allowing abortion will make it less expensive and less risky to kill an unborn child.
These are Cons sources arguing against Con. All arguments in 12) are Cons own arguments posted by him in round 1.
13) Unjustified killing rebuttal from Con. See Pro: "4) Consistency"
This is just round 1. I have to say, more work than I expected. Characters limit doesnt help either.
Burden of proof is shared
Round one: Pro
1) Personhood defined
2) Con needs to argue that fetus is not a person in order to prove that abortion is not killing of a person
3) Pro defends the personhood of a fetus claiming its not affected by its location, dependency or development.
Pro points out the flaw of standards.
4) The important next line is about consistency. The criteria for determining moral value has to be consistent. Inconsistency is the manifestation of unfairness. This is basically argument which Pro uses to say that inconsistency exists, and that argument which negates the rights of unborn children also negates the rights of born children and humans.
5) Pro claims that all human beings who have been concepted should have human rights, otherwise a contradiction will follow.
6) Unjustified killing argument seems to be the core of Pros argument. Person needs a very strong reason that justifies the killing of an unborn child. Such reason should never be applicable to born humans.
7) Pro points out inconsistencies in standards
Sources:
Source 1 saying that anything connected to the rights and justice has a positive substantive values.
Source 2 about consistency being vital in making fairness of the law.
Source 3 about legal certainty confirms the lack of guilt of an unborn child.
Source 4 about biologists - doesnt work
Source 5 about reasons for abortion seem to be providing us with a list of reasons why mothers kill their unborn children. Con would have to prove why any of those reasons is sufficient to kill a child. Hard task indeed.
Well, it seems to me that Con is just terribly inconsistent.
He claims:
1) number of abortions will not decrease
2) due to ban, some women will be unable to abort and will be forced to give birth.
These two already contradict each other.
Con spent a lot of the debate making claims of coerced reproduction, claiming that some women will be denied abortion and be forced to give birth in case of abortion ban. If some women will be unable to abort because of abortion ban, that means abortion ban saved their children from being killed and allowed them to live. In other words: decreased the number of abortions.
Con also claims that a woman has a right to kill her child to escape the abuse she experiences. I cant see any logic there.
Pro argues that banning abortions will decrease the number of abortions.
Con argues that banning abortions will punish the mothers who kill their own children.
Cons arguments seem to be self defeating.
I will read the debate again later to see if I can make a better conclusion with more detailed explanation, and then maybe vote on it.