I believe Mikal conceded to Bluesteel on DDO when leaving the site and that it was allowed. But the rules could be different on DART (and it seems that way from Barney's comment).
You should probably put more detailed reasoning for your vote in the comments, or it's likely to be removed by the mods. (Not to nitpick if it's your first vote here, but they do tend to be strict about that.)
If anyone does vote, please do so neutrally. I'm not sure what feuds are going on at the moment, but just evaluate arguments if you do choose to cast a vote.
"Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia"
My intention was to show that there is a precedent for regulating the actions of citizens in other countries (not to compare abortion itself to pedophilia). But I do see how it could come across that way, so I will phrase that point differently in the future.
Sorry for the late response. I haven't actually seen much research on legalization, but it sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and my internet is on and off. Once that gets sorted out, I'll take a look.
I'm referring to the more dangerous ones that are already illegal, not more common drugs like alcohol. I think it would be hard to give someone alcohol without them knowing, as it has a distinctive taste. Also, I'm not sure how commonly GHB and rohypnol are used ethically. (There are more ethical alternatives that achieve similar enjoyment.) A lot more people would miss alcohol if it was banned, so it's not an equal comparison.
You can make the case for legalizing them (they're used legally in other countries), but I think it's harder than the case for alcohol or marijuana.
I was thinking more about picking a particular substance, like ghb or rohypnol. Though I suppose mps could argue that there's no point in banning them so long as the other drugs you listed are still available to attackers.
Austin, since Lancelot has accepted I will debate him first (though I apologize for the delay). This debate was about to delete in a day anyway, so this will give us more time to prepare for when we eventually get a chance to debate.
Voters, please do not penalize Lancelot for accepting. I'd rather be judged on arguments than on a technicality.
Actually, lmk if this works for you. (Description is edited):
This debate addresses most abortions. However, to maintain the focus of this discussion on general cases, some rare instances fall outside the scope of this debate:
- Abortions performed in cases of rape
- Cases where the fetus is unlikely to survive if not aborted, such as those with anencephaly
- Abortions performed to save the life of the mother
- Cases where the mother is likely to have significant health disorders if an abortion is not performed, such as gestational diabetes
- Ectopic pregnancies
I suppose the issue with an extreme case is that it's hard to strictly define, but most people know it when they see it. Think "prima facie." That's why I started with "majority." I guess we can maybe define general cases as all those excluding the types you mentioned, but I think saying "in general" might actually be easier to interpret. (What deformities count as rare?) I could revert the resolution back to "majority" (i.e. you can bring up whatever cases you want so long as they make up at least half of abortions performed, similar to Novice's animal agriculture debate). That would be one barometer that I think would be fair. Or we could leave discretion up to voters. I could list a dozen extreme cases, and there would still probably be some convoluted and unlikely scenario that I missed. (i.e. what if performing an abortion sets up a chain reaction that saves 1,000 people? You could probably come up with some hypothetical situation where that's the case.)
If you support early abortions being allowed in general, I suggest we go with "majority" via the original resolution. (If I'm correct, you support all early abortions being legal.) That way the debate is about abortion in general rather than a dozen different rare cases. If a voter thinks I win on some cases and you win on others, it sets the goalposts in a clear spot.
If you want a stricter framework, I could change the resolution to "Abortion in the first two trimesters should be a right in all cases" and be Con (I assume you'd be willing to debate that.) But I'm not sure that's fair to you.
Probably best to define "Judaism" and "Christianity" in the description. Are we including any group that calls themselves Jewish? Any group that calls themself Christian?
Sorry, this may be a bit long. TL;DR: If it's fine with you, I'd rather discuss the general cases of abortion (something like the 95% that are elective), rather than debating rare occurrences.
In service of complete honesty, I think I would oppose abortion in a lot of those cases; however, I don't see a great discussion being had if we're forced to do a cost-benefit analysis for all of those situations. Since your position is that abortion should be a right in the early stages of pregnancy, generally speaking, I'd like to focus on contesting that. Maybe we could discuss some of those cases in the future, but I think it best to keep this debate focused on the general case of abortion, which is a very nuanced issue already.
All of the examples you listed sound like extreme cases. If you want to argue that the mother's life is always in danger when pregnancy occurs or talk about the stress of childbirth that most women have, then that would be in the scope of the debate. But I'd rather stick to general cases than extreme examples. We might disagree on race-selective or sex-selective abortions, but I wouldn't bring those up because they're not the general case.
As for punishments, which are a discussion all on their own, you're free to bring them up, but I don't see them being the focus of the debate. If you want to argue that the death penalty would be necessary for an effective abortion law and that such a punishment would be unjust, then that's your prerogative. But I don't see it being a necessary part of the resolution unless you want to present that issue as being relevant.
For a point of comparison, suppose we were discussing mandatory blood donation. One of us could bring up the hypothetical, "What if the person needing blood is a Nobel prize winner on the brink of a cure for cancer?" But even if we disagreed on that particular case, it would detract from the overall focus of the debate.
Changed to 1 week
Ping
I believe Mikal conceded to Bluesteel on DDO when leaving the site and that it was allowed. But the rules could be different on DART (and it seems that way from Barney's comment).
https://ddo.fandom.com/wiki/Mikal
I believe Slainte is leaving the site. That may explain those other things.
Pro conceded in the comments. Given the circumstances, this probably deserves a few additional votes.
Plz vote if you get the chance.
Only a few days left to vote!
If we do that, it might be good to have whiteflame or blamonkey as a judge as well, just so voters can see what a high-quality RFD looks like.
You should probably put more detailed reasoning for your vote in the comments, or it's likely to be removed by the mods. (Not to nitpick if it's your first vote here, but they do tend to be strict about that.)
If anyone does vote, please do so neutrally. I'm not sure what feuds are going on at the moment, but just evaluate arguments if you do choose to cast a vote.
All votes are appreciated!
There's no rule against having two identical debates.
Bump
You may like voting on this.
All votes are appreciated!
Ready when you are
"Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia"
My intention was to show that there is a precedent for regulating the actions of citizens in other countries (not to compare abortion itself to pedophilia). But I do see how it could come across that way, so I will phrase that point differently in the future.
Thanks for voting!
Thx for voting!
Only one week left to vote!
Sorry for the late response. I haven't actually seen much research on legalization, but it sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and my internet is on and off. Once that gets sorted out, I'll take a look.
Are you referring to decriminalization or legalization? Those are different things.
I'm referring to the more dangerous ones that are already illegal, not more common drugs like alcohol. I think it would be hard to give someone alcohol without them knowing, as it has a distinctive taste. Also, I'm not sure how commonly GHB and rohypnol are used ethically. (There are more ethical alternatives that achieve similar enjoyment.) A lot more people would miss alcohol if it was banned, so it's not an equal comparison.
You can make the case for legalizing them (they're used legally in other countries), but I think it's harder than the case for alcohol or marijuana.
I was thinking more about picking a particular substance, like ghb or rohypnol. Though I suppose mps could argue that there's no point in banning them so long as the other drugs you listed are still available to attackers.
"2+2=4!"
2+2 is not 24
No problem. I'm about to go on vacation myself actually, but if you want to debate this or something similar in about a week, I'd be down.
I should have mentioned the title of this debate in my RFD as well, which also supports Pro's interpretation of the resolution. But ah well.
Don't know what happened to Austin, but I do appreciate having the opportunity to debate this.
Plz vote!
BoP is shared, per the description. Doesn't seem like it would change your vote, though.
To be fair, I think you and Best.Korea would get along. His first debate was against a Muslim.
Careful. Best.Korea is the only person here better at trolling than you.
Glad to see you back! Any chance you'll be sticking around awhile?
I'm on both and hope to promote DART on Discord if I can. Unfortunately, DART isn't as active as it used to be.
"Pro provides two contradictory measurements for personhood."
Whoops. I meant Con.
If any of you are interested in debating immigration, I created an open challenge on Discord.
https://discord.gg/t6u5Ynb4
Glad for the opportunity to have this debate. Should have my opening up soon.
Austin, since Lancelot has accepted I will debate him first (though I apologize for the delay). This debate was about to delete in a day anyway, so this will give us more time to prepare for when we eventually get a chance to debate.
Voters, please do not penalize Lancelot for accepting. I'd rather be judged on arguments than on a technicality.
Idk if you are keeping track, but the debate will auto delete in about a day and a half.
For what it's worth, I think you did pretty good.
Ok, lmk if there's anything else.
Congrats on being a tournament finalist, btw
Actually, lmk if this works for you. (Description is edited):
This debate addresses most abortions. However, to maintain the focus of this discussion on general cases, some rare instances fall outside the scope of this debate:
- Abortions performed in cases of rape
- Cases where the fetus is unlikely to survive if not aborted, such as those with anencephaly
- Abortions performed to save the life of the mother
- Cases where the mother is likely to have significant health disorders if an abortion is not performed, such as gestational diabetes
- Ectopic pregnancies
I suppose the issue with an extreme case is that it's hard to strictly define, but most people know it when they see it. Think "prima facie." That's why I started with "majority." I guess we can maybe define general cases as all those excluding the types you mentioned, but I think saying "in general" might actually be easier to interpret. (What deformities count as rare?) I could revert the resolution back to "majority" (i.e. you can bring up whatever cases you want so long as they make up at least half of abortions performed, similar to Novice's animal agriculture debate). That would be one barometer that I think would be fair. Or we could leave discretion up to voters. I could list a dozen extreme cases, and there would still probably be some convoluted and unlikely scenario that I missed. (i.e. what if performing an abortion sets up a chain reaction that saves 1,000 people? You could probably come up with some hypothetical situation where that's the case.)
If you support early abortions being allowed in general, I suggest we go with "majority" via the original resolution. (If I'm correct, you support all early abortions being legal.) That way the debate is about abortion in general rather than a dozen different rare cases. If a voter thinks I win on some cases and you win on others, it sets the goalposts in a clear spot.
If you want a stricter framework, I could change the resolution to "Abortion in the first two trimesters should be a right in all cases" and be Con (I assume you'd be willing to debate that.) But I'm not sure that's fair to you.
That's good news. Of course, I never doubted that the Doctor would come through in time.
I hope this gets some votes...
Probably best to define "Judaism" and "Christianity" in the description. Are we including any group that calls themselves Jewish? Any group that calls themself Christian?
Sorry, this may be a bit long. TL;DR: If it's fine with you, I'd rather discuss the general cases of abortion (something like the 95% that are elective), rather than debating rare occurrences.
In service of complete honesty, I think I would oppose abortion in a lot of those cases; however, I don't see a great discussion being had if we're forced to do a cost-benefit analysis for all of those situations. Since your position is that abortion should be a right in the early stages of pregnancy, generally speaking, I'd like to focus on contesting that. Maybe we could discuss some of those cases in the future, but I think it best to keep this debate focused on the general case of abortion, which is a very nuanced issue already.
All of the examples you listed sound like extreme cases. If you want to argue that the mother's life is always in danger when pregnancy occurs or talk about the stress of childbirth that most women have, then that would be in the scope of the debate. But I'd rather stick to general cases than extreme examples. We might disagree on race-selective or sex-selective abortions, but I wouldn't bring those up because they're not the general case.
As for punishments, which are a discussion all on their own, you're free to bring them up, but I don't see them being the focus of the debate. If you want to argue that the death penalty would be necessary for an effective abortion law and that such a punishment would be unjust, then that's your prerogative. But I don't see it being a necessary part of the resolution unless you want to present that issue as being relevant.
For a point of comparison, suppose we were discussing mandatory blood donation. One of us could bring up the hypothetical, "What if the person needing blood is a Nobel prize winner on the brink of a cure for cancer?" But even if we disagreed on that particular case, it would detract from the overall focus of the debate.
Is the debate here specifically about Christianity or about God in general?
Maybe a trans person is a cat that identifies as a person.