What's sad is that's how he talks to everyone who disagrees with him. Religion, politics, even something as innocent as sports. The irony is that if you talk to him about the vacation he went on or the music he likes (there are some comments on his profile to that effect), he can be very human. I pity him.
You bet it would be trolled, you teeny bopper vegetable drinking cauliflower yeast infection orange peel! You silly Christia-what, you're an atheist? Oops, no backsies, my miss-steak! Let me treat you to some of my original insults that I thought of with my own brain by flipping dictionaries open to random pages, you lemon-lime soda broccoli burned bad-comic-book-on-the-rack window curtain...
Hmm, my impression isn't very good. Sounds more like the contents of a trash can than a true backwardseden spiel.
A bottom 10 debater just came out of the gate with a top 10-level argument? Now I've seen everything!
Seriously, you did an amazing job with this. While I fully expect Supa to come right back with an excellent argument, you could be a top-tier debater if you did this every time.
"significant being defined as a "contradiction" that can't be reasonably attributed to a translation error."
You may want to change that wording. By that definition, I could win by establishing a contradiction that wasn't explained by translation, but instead by logic or historical information.
You need to submit at least one point to make your case, or this debate will be an FF on both sides. It really doesn't matter what argument you use. Just write something so we can give you argument points.
I'm not really considering accepting it. If you reread my post, it's a series of horrible puns. In any case, I already have a different debate planned (I haven't posted it yet because I want to have my R1 argument written beforehand), and I only do one debate at a time.
This debate does look interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading it.
I'm on the fence on this issue, so I don't feel like writing a wall of text about. My argument could be big and beautiful, and I would make you pay for it. However, my personal indecision is a barrier between me and accepting this debate.
I did learn from this debate that I need to listen to more classical to balance out the metal. I kept expecting the melodic piano in "Hello" to break out into a heavy guitar riff.
-->@bsh1
Great debate. Also, you owe me medical bills for killing my brain when I wrote the RFD. We really need to get a reward of some kind for voting on non-FF contested debates. Maybe some green credits for every vote on a contested debate?
R1: (I'm counting this as a 3-round debate due to the waives, so my R1 will be Pro R1 and Con R2)
Pro begins with his proposal that Representatives should have a maximum of 4 terms and Senators should have a maximum of 2 terms. He present three reasons to support this proposal.
Pro (P)1. The massive advantage afforded to incumbents in elections means that the elections are much less free and fair than they would be with term limits.
P2. By enforcing the retirement of term-limited incumbents, term limits could lead to an increase in diversity in the Congress (by which he means that it would have more women and minority congressmen).
P3. A vast majority of Americans support term limits.
Subpoint P3A: Congress is widely unpopular, so it needs change to rebuild the people's trust in it. Pro claims that term limits could help restore that trust.
Con presents four points for his case. As a framework for his arguments, he uses consequentialist (You know you're in deep waters when the spell-checker doesn't recognize your philosophical terms) philosophy to say that, if he can prove that the consequences of no term limits are better than the consequences of term limits, he wins the debate.
Con (C) 1. Term limits lead to "memory loss." That is, due to the loss of experienced lawmakers, older programs are forgotten in favor of newer programs.
C2. Experienced lawmakers are several times more effective than freshmen lawmakers.
C3. Inexperienced lawmakers are more polarized than their experienced counterparts, which leads to a decrease in effectiveness.
C4. The priorities of term-limited lawmakers shift away from the interests of their constituents and toward their post-legislative career, which means a greater emphasis on party loyalty.
R2:
Pro begins by attacking Con's consequentialist framework. Consequentialism, he argues, cannot differentiate between consequences toward good and evil people. Furthermore, he argues that individual liberties, which he maintains that his proposal protects, should have precedence over some collective good. He then present rebuttals to Con's R1 arguments.
Counter-C1. He argues that Con assumes that Pro's plan would lead to a dearth of legislative experience. However, due to the short learning curve in Congress, the prior experience of many congressman, the possible methods of mitigating experience gaps, and the small decrease in average experience from 9 to 7 years in Pro's plan, the negative consequences of a dearth of experience would not take place.
Counter-C2. Pro argues that "hitchhikers" added to other bills by freshmen lawmakers, sponsorships, and subpoenas were not accounted for in Con's source regarding the relative ineffectiveness of freshmen lawmakers, so its results are faulty.
Counter-C3. Pro points out that the increased polarization of new lawmakers is more indicative of a more polarized electorate than a problem inherent to new lawmakers and that the gridlock created by partisanship has been largely effected by experienced members, not the freshmen.
Counter-C4. Pro argues that term limits have no effect on shifting priorities other than to make it happen after 7 years instead of 9, that there is no evidence that term-limited law-makers are less beholden to their constituents, and that a lack of term limits merely allows ineffective lawmakers to stay in office.
Con defends his framework by arguing that it "is not tenable to grant everyone unfettered individual rights." Criminals are one example of this. Furthermore, consequentialism would seek the general welfare of the people, which, according to Con, is the purpose of lawmaking.
Defense-C1. Con argues that the learning curve is not as short as Pro claims, as evidenced by the relative lack of bills passed by freshmen lawmakers. Furthermore, he argues that the prior experience suggested by Pro is not equivalent to the experience required for Congress and that only half of lawmakers have been in state legislators anyway. Con then presents a double bind for Pro. Pro's proposal would not significantly reduce the average time lawmakers spend in Congress. Thus, the advantage to Pro's plan is not clear. If, however, it does lead to a significant reduction in legislative experience, then the negative consequences that Con described will take place. Thus, Pro is left with a choice of either ceding away most of his offense or conceding to most of Con's offense.
Defense-C2. Con argues that if freshmen lawmakers are not effective at passing bills, then it makes little sense that they would be effective at adding hitchhikers, sponsorships, or issuing subpoenas.
Defense-C3. Con argues that legislative gridlock is usually broken by experienced members, who Pro would have term-limited out. Also, his study regarding polarization is more recent, so he argues that it should have more weight. Also, he argues that Pro's other explanations don't discredit his causal link between freshmen lawmakers and polarization.
Con extends his argument that new lawmakers tend to ignore old programs.
Defense-C4. Con argues that one of Pro's sources supports his claim regarding shifting priorities and argues that term-limited lawmakers lose motivation for bipartisanship.
Counter-P1. Con presents a study that is 16 years newer than Pro's showing that the incumbency advantage has been decreasing. Furthermore, he argues that it would undemocratic to use term limits to stop a popular incumbent from running.
Counter-P2. Con argues that term limits have actually been detrimental to the increase in diversity of lawmakers.
Counter-P3. Con argues that the popularity of an issue has very little to do with whether it is a good idea.
R3:
Pro argues that he does not support limitless rights, but that rights nevertheless trump consequentialist concerns. He also argues that Con dropped some of his points against consequentialism as well as dropping Pro's framework.
Conclusion-C1. He points out that Con dropped his arguments showing that his proposal would not lead to a dearth of legislative experience, which also refutes the allegedly dropped point of orphaned programs. Furthermore, Con dropped the short learning curve, methods of mitigating brain drain, and the fact that there are means of gaining prior experience other than state legislatures. Finally, he turns Con's double bind back on him, pointing out that it is a concession that Pro's plan would not lead to a dearth of legislative experience.
Conclusion-C2. Pro repeats that Con's study does not account for hitchhikers.
Conclusion-C3. Pro argues that one of Con's studies supports the idea that more experienced lawmakers grow more partisan. Furthermore, his alternate explanations for polarization make it impossible for Con to establish a causal link.
Conclusion-C4. Pro contends that Con dropped most of his arguments against this point.
Pro argues that his plan would lead to an increase in turnover without a significant decrease in experience.
Defense-P1. Pro argues that Con's study says that it cannot be compared with studies from previous years, that Pro did use other, more recent sources, and that Con dropped the reasons he provided for the incumbency advantage.
Defense-P2. Pro argues that his source is more recent and post-#MeToo, supporting his argument that term limits could increase diversity.
Defense-P3. Pro argues that popular sovereignty does matter and that term limits would promote closeness between legislators and constituents.
Con defends his framework by pointing out that most of Pro's objections to it are hypothetical and should have no bearing on it. Furthermore, consequentialism is in line with the Constitution's goal of the general welfare. Finally, he points out that Pro's "framework" is in fact nonexistent.
Conclusion-C2 (Not a typo. That's the order in the debate). Con points out that there is no evidence for Pro's claims of hitchhiking.
Conclusion-C1. Con argues that Pro's plan would not significantly reduce the average time in Congress and would not substantially increase turnover.
Conclusion-C3. Con argues that freshmen congressmen are no less partisan that experienced congressmen. According to the evidence, they are more extreme.
Conclusion-C4. Con argues that his study regarding shifting priorities refutes Pro's study, which, according to Con, reaches 2 different conclusions using different assumptions and is therefore unreliable.
Conclusion-P1. Con argues that he used multiple studies to prove his point, invalidating Pro's objections. Furthermore, he repeats his claim that term limits do create unfairness by restricting the people's choices of candidates.
Conclusion-P2. Con argues that he did use recent data and that #MeToo would not remove any barriers for female candidates.
Conclusion-P3. Con argues that popular sovereignty is outweighed by the other concerns he brought up.
Both debaters have good S&G, conduct, and sources.
Both debaters presented excellent arguments for their sides, and I would like to congratulate both debaters. This debate was fantastic and very well researched.
In admitting that his plan would not significantly reduce the average time legislators spend in Congress, Pro loses much of his offense. I think he did do a good job of showing that there would be an increased turnover, which would be a good thing. However, that would also lead to an increase in freshmen lawmakers, which would not be so good. Arguments are a tie.
Debates about morality like this one bother me. You either have to establish the truth of an objective system of morality or appeal to the lowest common denominator and hope that you have common ground with your opponent to build on. Otherwise, it's impossible to objectively make a case.
I'll write my RFD here in English first and translate it to French for the vote. It will take me some time to translate it because Google Translate is not always accurate so I have to fiddle with my wording to get it to say what I want it to.
Pro begins the debate with a simple syllogism: an unborn child is a human life, therefore it is murder to kill it. He supports this with the example of third-trimester fetuses, which are, according to Pro, babies. He argues that, if they are human lives, it would be a slippery slope to contend that fetuses in earlier stages of development are not alive. Con attacks this with statistics showing the low viability rate of first-trimester infants. Pro counters that viability is an argument based on technology. In the future, technology could be developed that could make first-trimester fetuses viable, thus ruining the argument that life is determined by viability. This is also his refutation to the objection that fetuses are not lives because they are dependent on the mother. Pro also preemptively attacks the objection that the mother did not consent to the conception of the fetus, so she has no responsibility to keep it alive. He argues that consent is irrelevant because the responsibility is intrinsic to motherhood. Con counters that abortion is merely a severance of the biological connection between the mother and the fetus. Letting someone die, Con says, is not equivalent to murder. Pro replies that abortion nearly inevitably leads to the fetus's death, so Con's first objection fails. Also, the intent is usually to make it so the fetus no longer exists, or to actively kill it.
Con also attacks Pro's claim that abortion leads to death. He cites a definition of death and notes that the end of a fetus does not match the definition of death because the fetus does not lose consciousness. Pro rebuts this with an argumentum ad absurdum. If Con's logic was valid, the death of a coma patient would also not be death.
Pro also argues that abortion should be illegal because women can be pressured into it. Con refutes this effectively by pointing out that people are pressured into things all the time, so it is not a justification for making something illegal.
Con attacks Pro's position by pointing out that most or all countries that have legalized abortion did so for constitutional reasons. That is, those governments decided that they have no authority to ban it. Pro points out that this is merely a practical objection, which has no impact on the moral question of whether or not it should be made illegal.
Pro attempts to argue that consent to have an abortion is sometimes not possible. Con counters this effectively by saying that this is a separate question because it would be a form of extortion and itself a violation of the women's bodily autonomy.
Overall, I think both arguments were somewhat shaky and relied too much on personal opinion and used too many unsourced statements presented as facts. However, both sides are guilty of that. Both sides brought up some points such as constitutional questions and manipulation of women which seemed to be largely extraneous. I think Pro did a better job arguing that the unborn are alive and aborting them is murder than Con did arguing to the contrary. Arguments to Pro.
Neither had bad sources, but they also didn't make as much use of sources to back up their assertions as I would like. Sources are tied. Conduct and S&G both lean toward Pro because of the forfeit and Con's difficult-to-read R1 presentation, but neither of those is sufficiently egregious to award points.
The experts have spoken. Pineapple pizza is a travesty. Sadly, there is no debating with its demented devotees. There is no hope for such people. They probably like unfrosted Poptarts, Christmas Shoes, and chewing nails.
FOR VOTERS: Here is a link to an English translation of the debate.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.debateart.com%2Fdebates%2F1647%2Fque-le-gouvernement-interdise-l-avortement
Il est dommage que le premier débat DART non anglais ait été abandonné au dernier tour. J'ai également découvert que Google Translate n'est pas tout à fait exact, il pourrait donc me falloir un certain temps avant que mon vote RFD ait du sens dans les deux langues.
There is a bit of irony in one of your examples. You stated that Ragnar's definition would make programmers into scientists. While I would agree that they aren't, it is funny in that one of the two main degrees for programmers is called Computer Science.
I would say that Trump isn't racist. He's the living embodiment of an internet troll. If he says something racist, it isn't because he racist but because he just doesn't care. In his mind, people who disagree with him deserve any insult he can throw at them.
Also, being racist would imply some form of loyalty to his own race, and I highly doubt Trump is loyal to anyone or thing other than himself (excepting his young son, that is.).
I made a few errors in my last round.
"It does not censor anyone."
I meant that the Info boxes aren't censorship.
"Once again, it is terrible that aborted babies are in vaccines."
I meant that it is terrible that they develop vaccines from aborted babies. They do not directly put aborted babies into vaccines.
What's sad is that's how he talks to everyone who disagrees with him. Religion, politics, even something as innocent as sports. The irony is that if you talk to him about the vacation he went on or the music he likes (there are some comments on his profile to that effect), he can be very human. I pity him.
Anyway, welcome to the site!
Backwardseden! Backwardseden! Backwardseden!
https://youtu.be/d4ftmOI5NnI?t=127
Thankfully not. My impression must have been better than I thought, though. Of course, backwardseden is pretty easy to imitate.
You bet it would be trolled, you teeny bopper vegetable drinking cauliflower yeast infection orange peel! You silly Christia-what, you're an atheist? Oops, no backsies, my miss-steak! Let me treat you to some of my original insults that I thought of with my own brain by flipping dictionaries open to random pages, you lemon-lime soda broccoli burned bad-comic-book-on-the-rack window curtain...
Hmm, my impression isn't very good. Sounds more like the contents of a trash can than a true backwardseden spiel.
You're welcome. I couldn't let it time out with no votes.
You're welcome.
That was an interesting read and well-researched. Thanks for linking it.
A bottom 10 debater just came out of the gate with a top 10-level argument? Now I've seen everything!
Seriously, you did an amazing job with this. While I fully expect Supa to come right back with an excellent argument, you could be a top-tier debater if you did this every time.
Yes, it's great. It was pretty easy to guess with that rant about what would happen if being evil meant you didn't exist.
Con left the site, so he won't be able to answer your question.
This is pretty random, but are you a fan of the LutheranSatire YouTube channel?
"significant being defined as a "contradiction" that can't be reasonably attributed to a translation error."
You may want to change that wording. By that definition, I could win by establishing a contradiction that wasn't explained by translation, but instead by logic or historical information.
Thanks!
You need to submit at least one point to make your case, or this debate will be an FF on both sides. It really doesn't matter what argument you use. Just write something so we can give you argument points.
I really don't understand the need for a voting period that long.
Cats are better.
Perhaps they didn't check the comments section and only reported "RFD in comments."
Indeed, to truth!
I'm not really considering accepting it. If you reread my post, it's a series of horrible puns. In any case, I already have a different debate planned (I haven't posted it yet because I want to have my R1 argument written beforehand), and I only do one debate at a time.
This debate does look interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading it.
No problem.
I'm on the fence on this issue, so I don't feel like writing a wall of text about. My argument could be big and beautiful, and I would make you pay for it. However, my personal indecision is a barrier between me and accepting this debate.
Are you supposed to tag me when you decide whether or not to remove my vote?
First oromagi, now PressF4Respect. I'm beginning to think the key to winning debates is to copy/paste mafia analysis into them.
I did learn from this debate that I need to listen to more classical to balance out the metal. I kept expecting the melodic piano in "Hello" to break out into a heavy guitar riff.
-->@bsh1
Great debate. Also, you owe me medical bills for killing my brain when I wrote the RFD. We really need to get a reward of some kind for voting on non-FF contested debates. Maybe some green credits for every vote on a contested debate?
R1: (I'm counting this as a 3-round debate due to the waives, so my R1 will be Pro R1 and Con R2)
Pro begins with his proposal that Representatives should have a maximum of 4 terms and Senators should have a maximum of 2 terms. He present three reasons to support this proposal.
Pro (P)1. The massive advantage afforded to incumbents in elections means that the elections are much less free and fair than they would be with term limits.
P2. By enforcing the retirement of term-limited incumbents, term limits could lead to an increase in diversity in the Congress (by which he means that it would have more women and minority congressmen).
P3. A vast majority of Americans support term limits.
Subpoint P3A: Congress is widely unpopular, so it needs change to rebuild the people's trust in it. Pro claims that term limits could help restore that trust.
Con presents four points for his case. As a framework for his arguments, he uses consequentialist (You know you're in deep waters when the spell-checker doesn't recognize your philosophical terms) philosophy to say that, if he can prove that the consequences of no term limits are better than the consequences of term limits, he wins the debate.
Con (C) 1. Term limits lead to "memory loss." That is, due to the loss of experienced lawmakers, older programs are forgotten in favor of newer programs.
C2. Experienced lawmakers are several times more effective than freshmen lawmakers.
C3. Inexperienced lawmakers are more polarized than their experienced counterparts, which leads to a decrease in effectiveness.
C4. The priorities of term-limited lawmakers shift away from the interests of their constituents and toward their post-legislative career, which means a greater emphasis on party loyalty.
R2:
Pro begins by attacking Con's consequentialist framework. Consequentialism, he argues, cannot differentiate between consequences toward good and evil people. Furthermore, he argues that individual liberties, which he maintains that his proposal protects, should have precedence over some collective good. He then present rebuttals to Con's R1 arguments.
Counter-C1. He argues that Con assumes that Pro's plan would lead to a dearth of legislative experience. However, due to the short learning curve in Congress, the prior experience of many congressman, the possible methods of mitigating experience gaps, and the small decrease in average experience from 9 to 7 years in Pro's plan, the negative consequences of a dearth of experience would not take place.
Counter-C2. Pro argues that "hitchhikers" added to other bills by freshmen lawmakers, sponsorships, and subpoenas were not accounted for in Con's source regarding the relative ineffectiveness of freshmen lawmakers, so its results are faulty.
Counter-C3. Pro points out that the increased polarization of new lawmakers is more indicative of a more polarized electorate than a problem inherent to new lawmakers and that the gridlock created by partisanship has been largely effected by experienced members, not the freshmen.
Counter-C4. Pro argues that term limits have no effect on shifting priorities other than to make it happen after 7 years instead of 9, that there is no evidence that term-limited law-makers are less beholden to their constituents, and that a lack of term limits merely allows ineffective lawmakers to stay in office.
Con defends his framework by arguing that it "is not tenable to grant everyone unfettered individual rights." Criminals are one example of this. Furthermore, consequentialism would seek the general welfare of the people, which, according to Con, is the purpose of lawmaking.
Defense-C1. Con argues that the learning curve is not as short as Pro claims, as evidenced by the relative lack of bills passed by freshmen lawmakers. Furthermore, he argues that the prior experience suggested by Pro is not equivalent to the experience required for Congress and that only half of lawmakers have been in state legislators anyway. Con then presents a double bind for Pro. Pro's proposal would not significantly reduce the average time lawmakers spend in Congress. Thus, the advantage to Pro's plan is not clear. If, however, it does lead to a significant reduction in legislative experience, then the negative consequences that Con described will take place. Thus, Pro is left with a choice of either ceding away most of his offense or conceding to most of Con's offense.
Defense-C2. Con argues that if freshmen lawmakers are not effective at passing bills, then it makes little sense that they would be effective at adding hitchhikers, sponsorships, or issuing subpoenas.
Defense-C3. Con argues that legislative gridlock is usually broken by experienced members, who Pro would have term-limited out. Also, his study regarding polarization is more recent, so he argues that it should have more weight. Also, he argues that Pro's other explanations don't discredit his causal link between freshmen lawmakers and polarization.
Con extends his argument that new lawmakers tend to ignore old programs.
Defense-C4. Con argues that one of Pro's sources supports his claim regarding shifting priorities and argues that term-limited lawmakers lose motivation for bipartisanship.
Counter-P1. Con presents a study that is 16 years newer than Pro's showing that the incumbency advantage has been decreasing. Furthermore, he argues that it would undemocratic to use term limits to stop a popular incumbent from running.
Counter-P2. Con argues that term limits have actually been detrimental to the increase in diversity of lawmakers.
Counter-P3. Con argues that the popularity of an issue has very little to do with whether it is a good idea.
R3:
Pro argues that he does not support limitless rights, but that rights nevertheless trump consequentialist concerns. He also argues that Con dropped some of his points against consequentialism as well as dropping Pro's framework.
Conclusion-C1. He points out that Con dropped his arguments showing that his proposal would not lead to a dearth of legislative experience, which also refutes the allegedly dropped point of orphaned programs. Furthermore, Con dropped the short learning curve, methods of mitigating brain drain, and the fact that there are means of gaining prior experience other than state legislatures. Finally, he turns Con's double bind back on him, pointing out that it is a concession that Pro's plan would not lead to a dearth of legislative experience.
Conclusion-C2. Pro repeats that Con's study does not account for hitchhikers.
Conclusion-C3. Pro argues that one of Con's studies supports the idea that more experienced lawmakers grow more partisan. Furthermore, his alternate explanations for polarization make it impossible for Con to establish a causal link.
Conclusion-C4. Pro contends that Con dropped most of his arguments against this point.
Pro argues that his plan would lead to an increase in turnover without a significant decrease in experience.
Defense-P1. Pro argues that Con's study says that it cannot be compared with studies from previous years, that Pro did use other, more recent sources, and that Con dropped the reasons he provided for the incumbency advantage.
Defense-P2. Pro argues that his source is more recent and post-#MeToo, supporting his argument that term limits could increase diversity.
Defense-P3. Pro argues that popular sovereignty does matter and that term limits would promote closeness between legislators and constituents.
Con defends his framework by pointing out that most of Pro's objections to it are hypothetical and should have no bearing on it. Furthermore, consequentialism is in line with the Constitution's goal of the general welfare. Finally, he points out that Pro's "framework" is in fact nonexistent.
Conclusion-C2 (Not a typo. That's the order in the debate). Con points out that there is no evidence for Pro's claims of hitchhiking.
Conclusion-C1. Con argues that Pro's plan would not significantly reduce the average time in Congress and would not substantially increase turnover.
Conclusion-C3. Con argues that freshmen congressmen are no less partisan that experienced congressmen. According to the evidence, they are more extreme.
Conclusion-C4. Con argues that his study regarding shifting priorities refutes Pro's study, which, according to Con, reaches 2 different conclusions using different assumptions and is therefore unreliable.
Conclusion-P1. Con argues that he used multiple studies to prove his point, invalidating Pro's objections. Furthermore, he repeats his claim that term limits do create unfairness by restricting the people's choices of candidates.
Conclusion-P2. Con argues that he did use recent data and that #MeToo would not remove any barriers for female candidates.
Conclusion-P3. Con argues that popular sovereignty is outweighed by the other concerns he brought up.
Both debaters have good S&G, conduct, and sources.
Both debaters presented excellent arguments for their sides, and I would like to congratulate both debaters. This debate was fantastic and very well researched.
In admitting that his plan would not significantly reduce the average time legislators spend in Congress, Pro loses much of his offense. I think he did do a good job of showing that there would be an increased turnover, which would be a good thing. However, that would also lead to an increase in freshmen lawmakers, which would not be so good. Arguments are a tie.
Debates about morality like this one bother me. You either have to establish the truth of an objective system of morality or appeal to the lowest common denominator and hope that you have common ground with your opponent to build on. Otherwise, it's impossible to objectively make a case.
I'll write my RFD here in English first and translate it to French for the vote. It will take me some time to translate it because Google Translate is not always accurate so I have to fiddle with my wording to get it to say what I want it to.
Pro begins the debate with a simple syllogism: an unborn child is a human life, therefore it is murder to kill it. He supports this with the example of third-trimester fetuses, which are, according to Pro, babies. He argues that, if they are human lives, it would be a slippery slope to contend that fetuses in earlier stages of development are not alive. Con attacks this with statistics showing the low viability rate of first-trimester infants. Pro counters that viability is an argument based on technology. In the future, technology could be developed that could make first-trimester fetuses viable, thus ruining the argument that life is determined by viability. This is also his refutation to the objection that fetuses are not lives because they are dependent on the mother. Pro also preemptively attacks the objection that the mother did not consent to the conception of the fetus, so she has no responsibility to keep it alive. He argues that consent is irrelevant because the responsibility is intrinsic to motherhood. Con counters that abortion is merely a severance of the biological connection between the mother and the fetus. Letting someone die, Con says, is not equivalent to murder. Pro replies that abortion nearly inevitably leads to the fetus's death, so Con's first objection fails. Also, the intent is usually to make it so the fetus no longer exists, or to actively kill it.
Con also attacks Pro's claim that abortion leads to death. He cites a definition of death and notes that the end of a fetus does not match the definition of death because the fetus does not lose consciousness. Pro rebuts this with an argumentum ad absurdum. If Con's logic was valid, the death of a coma patient would also not be death.
Pro also argues that abortion should be illegal because women can be pressured into it. Con refutes this effectively by pointing out that people are pressured into things all the time, so it is not a justification for making something illegal.
Con attacks Pro's position by pointing out that most or all countries that have legalized abortion did so for constitutional reasons. That is, those governments decided that they have no authority to ban it. Pro points out that this is merely a practical objection, which has no impact on the moral question of whether or not it should be made illegal.
Pro attempts to argue that consent to have an abortion is sometimes not possible. Con counters this effectively by saying that this is a separate question because it would be a form of extortion and itself a violation of the women's bodily autonomy.
Overall, I think both arguments were somewhat shaky and relied too much on personal opinion and used too many unsourced statements presented as facts. However, both sides are guilty of that. Both sides brought up some points such as constitutional questions and manipulation of women which seemed to be largely extraneous. I think Pro did a better job arguing that the unborn are alive and aborting them is murder than Con did arguing to the contrary. Arguments to Pro.
Neither had bad sources, but they also didn't make as much use of sources to back up their assertions as I would like. Sources are tied. Conduct and S&G both lean toward Pro because of the forfeit and Con's difficult-to-read R1 presentation, but neither of those is sufficiently egregious to award points.
You're welcome.
That is beyond any possible doubt.
The experts have spoken. Pineapple pizza is a travesty. Sadly, there is no debating with its demented devotees. There is no hope for such people. They probably like unfrosted Poptarts, Christmas Shoes, and chewing nails.
Good idea.
I have no idea how I would write an RFD on this debate.
Interesting. Do we send the winner to MTV, or a show that actually plays music?
FOR VOTERS: Here is a link to an English translation of the debate.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.debateart.com%2Fdebates%2F1647%2Fque-le-gouvernement-interdise-l-avortement
Il est dommage que le premier débat DART non anglais ait été abandonné au dernier tour. J'ai également découvert que Google Translate n'est pas tout à fait exact, il pourrait donc me falloir un certain temps avant que mon vote RFD ait du sens dans les deux langues.
There is a bit of irony in one of your examples. You stated that Ragnar's definition would make programmers into scientists. While I would agree that they aren't, it is funny in that one of the two main degrees for programmers is called Computer Science.
Sorry for taking so long to add my vote. It was a great debate, though.
I would say that Trump isn't racist. He's the living embodiment of an internet troll. If he says something racist, it isn't because he racist but because he just doesn't care. In his mind, people who disagree with him deserve any insult he can throw at them.
Also, being racist would imply some form of loyalty to his own race, and I highly doubt Trump is loyal to anyone or thing other than himself (excepting his young son, that is.).
Thanks for letting me know how the sources points work. I've adjusted my vote accordingly.
Thanks for debating. I appreciate that you didn't forfeit or get banned like my last opponent did, and that you stayed mostly civil.
I made a few errors in my last round.
"It does not censor anyone."
I meant that the Info boxes aren't censorship.
"Once again, it is terrible that aborted babies are in vaccines."
I meant that it is terrible that they develop vaccines from aborted babies. They do not directly put aborted babies into vaccines.
I'll try to vote on it today or tomorrow, depending on when I have time.
6 hours left.
Well, that was predictable.
Ah! It's a retired 30-year-old! And he's making the exact same argument. Somehow, I'm not buying it.
Oh, the birthday is different. Even so, I'm still suspicious.