Good argument! We can definitely see the positive effects of nuclear power when comparing France and Germany, with France having one-tenth the carbon emissions per kWh than Germany due to how 70% of France's power is from nuclear energy while Germany has many coal-burning plants. These plants in Germany have also spread pollution via wind, with a small portion of pollution in France being from the wind blowing pollution from Germany. Furthermore, Germany's burning of fossil fuels for energy is linked to over 2,500 deaths abroad each year.
Definitely, as we see innovations in modern nuclear power plant designs being safer, smaller, and more efficient, it would be good to see the US move towards more nuclear sources too in order to cut down on fossil fuels and burning coal.
I only read the first few rounds, but did you try a rebuttal to fetus being human being on a definition basis? As in accept that the cells have life but not under the classification of human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". As child/baby/infant by definition all refer to someone born (thus, a fetus does not fall under this definition) it becomes incorrect to refer to a fetus as a child/baby/infant/human/etc.
I do think the personhood argument is strong, though it only applies to the first 13 weeks rather than all of pregnancy.
What's the point of having the "what to do about it" section? It is kind of confusing on what it means, could you clarify? If this section is shared for Pro and Con, why bring it up?
Very interesting!
Though I didn't completely read this, personally, I've always agreed since third grade that 10 - 9.9999999999 repeating was equal to 0 and have seen a lot of proofs on it too.
I see a lot of people attacking the chicken example I made -> It was used rather as an analogy of birth vs pre-birth rather than human and murder. It seems there was some confusion about this.
Also, I think if I ever have a second debate it could be even stronger now that my argument has been through some battles. Once I condense my writing down, I can fit more points too.
Scroll down to "Abortion Restrictions". In countries where there are bans, the number of abortions per 1000 women is no less than in countries without restrictions. I think that including this stat would have definitely strengthened my case a lot more.
I agree. Though I disagree with your interpretation, we can leave it off as there is no round 3. Just need to wait for the votes. Glad I could challenge myself with this debate!
Yeah I didn't know what to do as it was my first debate. Do you think my case would have been stronger if I added things pertaining to women's rights? I think I could have improved my case if I added things with constitutional rights pertaining to the US constitution, etc.
Also, some further notes regarding to the source on how 90% of abortions are done by licensed physicians (this does not pertain to the main debate as there is no R3 and thus this is simply post-debate discussion):
Your source: https://abort73.com/end_abortion/what_about_illegal_abortions/
It stated:"...article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing"
Given that the excerpt provided only cited New York as its research example and that data from other countries were unattainable, it is safe to conclude that it only meant America, not the globe. There was no mention of worldwide and only mentions of America.
For https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Where you said that fetal/maternal life issues accounted for 1.27% of abortions rather than 7%, the chart that was used for your had 75% of participants not fill it out at all. Thus, adjust the data points removing the 75% who didn't participate produces (and this data is for Florida only): 4% from fetal defects, 13.6% for maternal health, and remaining 80% as economic reasons (incest+rape as 1%).
This is just for verification of data only, and does not pertain to the debate at all. Could you please go through and verify it too, the numbers/evidence only? Thanks.
Thank you! After reading your strong arguments along with Oramagi, Ragnar, etc, I have been making changes to the way I debate. Glad that it is apparent!
Thanks for the help, I'll include it into the final round. Even in the case that every single claim made by PRO is true beyond a reasonable doubt, he still cannot win as he did not dispute any part of my case involving mass killings and torture of millions of Uyghur Muslims in China. Thus, regardless, none of what he has said is classified as even close to a human rights violation let alone to the scale affecting millions (as these police shootings affect a hundred people per year).
"Overkill" is quite fitting for this debate. Mall doesn't even have much of a case. In my opinion, this is one of those troll debates. Enjoy the free win!
Well, in the case that Pro-Life does institute some sort of restriction on abortion, I definitely would be in support of compromising with the said method of forced blood donations (with exceptions, of course). However, in the case in which abortion is kept legal, I would not support any form of punishment for abortions and will support government funding to increase access to planned parenthood.
As I am pro-choice, I do not believe this punishment would be an effective deterrent. It seems to be more of a creative benefit from abortion. Personally, I would not punish abortion as I do not find it morally wrong nor pertaining to murder. In contrary, abortions would be more effective to be reduced through education, more birth control access, and other means to prevent pregnancies from taking place.
Though this is quite a creative compromise, I would not think this as a practical endeavor. Donating blood is often associated with many health effects, many people are not qualified to donate blood, and constitutionally, this is categorized as a "cruel and unusual punishment" and since it cannot encompass all subjects, it is not a uniform punishment. To require all abortion patients to be subject to this law would definitely be cruel and unusual as not everyone has the ability to donate blood, and many conditions render the forced extracted blood to unusable.
Don't worry, I have included that reference to the exact same statistic in my R2, although I should have included specific numbers instead of just saying that whites are shot twice as much by police than blacks:
"Every single year in the past four years, nearly twice as many white people are killed as blacks, despite blacks performing more murder, manslaughter, and robbery than whites. In fact, as far as total crimes done, white perform twice as many than blacks, and are killed twice as much by police, thus no conclusive argument can be made that black people are being targeted and killed based on race and not by actions"
In round 3, PRO did not dispute any of these facts.
Thank you for this opportunity to debate you! Even if I do not win, I will have learned a lot to strengthen my side for future arguments. You have proven to be a very competent opponent as it took me a while to come up with a clever response.
ATTENTION VOTERS:
I forgot to add one more point in response to the point on King Leopold for R2:
As I established that he was from centuries ago and does not apply to this argument, I forgot to add that he was also not from America and is another reason his actions do not apply.
My bad, I forgot to include my sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps (Used for data and estimates)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/
Quotes are from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063
Thank you! I am also looking forward to seeing your argument. By the way, this is my first time doing this and debating, so my apologies if I am a complete noob.
I look forward to the debate. To be clear, the debate is on how white people are the most racist group of people, and as a con, I will have to prove that a different race or culture is more racist than white people. Also, I will be debating about actions in the modern era, not about events from fifty years before. This debate is for the modern world, in which you claim that white people are above all else the most racists group of people on earth.
Good argument! We can definitely see the positive effects of nuclear power when comparing France and Germany, with France having one-tenth the carbon emissions per kWh than Germany due to how 70% of France's power is from nuclear energy while Germany has many coal-burning plants. These plants in Germany have also spread pollution via wind, with a small portion of pollution in France being from the wind blowing pollution from Germany. Furthermore, Germany's burning of fossil fuels for energy is linked to over 2,500 deaths abroad each year.
Definitely, as we see innovations in modern nuclear power plant designs being safer, smaller, and more efficient, it would be good to see the US move towards more nuclear sources too in order to cut down on fossil fuels and burning coal.
Well, Biden ended up winning.
I only read the first few rounds, but did you try a rebuttal to fetus being human being on a definition basis? As in accept that the cells have life but not under the classification of human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". As child/baby/infant by definition all refer to someone born (thus, a fetus does not fall under this definition) it becomes incorrect to refer to a fetus as a child/baby/infant/human/etc.
I do think the personhood argument is strong, though it only applies to the first 13 weeks rather than all of pregnancy.
What's the point of having the "what to do about it" section? It is kind of confusing on what it means, could you clarify? If this section is shared for Pro and Con, why bring it up?
Very good job with this one
Wow, very strong argument!
Very interesting!
Though I didn't completely read this, personally, I've always agreed since third grade that 10 - 9.9999999999 repeating was equal to 0 and have seen a lot of proofs on it too.
Thank you for the analysis! Learned a lot from it
Thank you for the vote!
Ah yes, I see the issue. Thanks
I see a lot of people attacking the chicken example I made -> It was used rather as an analogy of birth vs pre-birth rather than human and murder. It seems there was some confusion about this.
Thanks for the feedback for round 1! Definitely agree with a lot of what you said. I'll be making changes to my instigator argument for future use.
Very solid argument!
Also, I think if I ever have a second debate it could be even stronger now that my argument has been through some battles. Once I condense my writing down, I can fit more points too.
Thank you Ragnar! Yes, changing it to rated would be nice.
Could I get your thoughts on this stat?
https://givingcompass.org/article/the-demographic-breakdown-of-women-who-are-getting-abortions/
Scroll down to "Abortion Restrictions". In countries where there are bans, the number of abortions per 1000 women is no less than in countries without restrictions. I think that including this stat would have definitely strengthened my case a lot more.
Thoughts?
Thank you for the vote! I have definitely a lot to learn. After reading some of your debates, I seem that I could be far more concise in my arguments.
I agree. Though I disagree with your interpretation, we can leave it off as there is no round 3. Just need to wait for the votes. Glad I could challenge myself with this debate!
Yeah I didn't know what to do as it was my first debate. Do you think my case would have been stronger if I added things pertaining to women's rights? I think I could have improved my case if I added things with constitutional rights pertaining to the US constitution, etc.
Also, some further notes regarding to the source on how 90% of abortions are done by licensed physicians (this does not pertain to the main debate as there is no R3 and thus this is simply post-debate discussion):
Your source: https://abort73.com/end_abortion/what_about_illegal_abortions/
It stated:"...article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing"
Given that the excerpt provided only cited New York as its research example and that data from other countries were unattainable, it is safe to conclude that it only meant America, not the globe. There was no mention of worldwide and only mentions of America.
For https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Where you said that fetal/maternal life issues accounted for 1.27% of abortions rather than 7%, the chart that was used for your had 75% of participants not fill it out at all. Thus, adjust the data points removing the 75% who didn't participate produces (and this data is for Florida only): 4% from fetal defects, 13.6% for maternal health, and remaining 80% as economic reasons (incest+rape as 1%).
This is just for verification of data only, and does not pertain to the debate at all. Could you please go through and verify it too, the numbers/evidence only? Thanks.
Glad how this debate turned out! Very strong finish
Thank you! After reading your strong arguments along with Oramagi, Ragnar, etc, I have been making changes to the way I debate. Glad that it is apparent!
Please read the debate and vote. Thank you!
Thanks for the help, I'll include it into the final round. Even in the case that every single claim made by PRO is true beyond a reasonable doubt, he still cannot win as he did not dispute any part of my case involving mass killings and torture of millions of Uyghur Muslims in China. Thus, regardless, none of what he has said is classified as even close to a human rights violation let alone to the scale affecting millions (as these police shootings affect a hundred people per year).
Solid debate!
"Overkill" is quite fitting for this debate. Mall doesn't even have much of a case. In my opinion, this is one of those troll debates. Enjoy the free win!
Well, in the case that Pro-Life does institute some sort of restriction on abortion, I definitely would be in support of compromising with the said method of forced blood donations (with exceptions, of course). However, in the case in which abortion is kept legal, I would not support any form of punishment for abortions and will support government funding to increase access to planned parenthood.
As I am pro-choice, I do not believe this punishment would be an effective deterrent. It seems to be more of a creative benefit from abortion. Personally, I would not punish abortion as I do not find it morally wrong nor pertaining to murder. In contrary, abortions would be more effective to be reduced through education, more birth control access, and other means to prevent pregnancies from taking place.
Though this is quite a creative compromise, I would not think this as a practical endeavor. Donating blood is often associated with many health effects, many people are not qualified to donate blood, and constitutionally, this is categorized as a "cruel and unusual punishment" and since it cannot encompass all subjects, it is not a uniform punishment. To require all abortion patients to be subject to this law would definitely be cruel and unusual as not everyone has the ability to donate blood, and many conditions render the forced extracted blood to unusable.
Don't worry, I have included that reference to the exact same statistic in my R2, although I should have included specific numbers instead of just saying that whites are shot twice as much by police than blacks:
"Every single year in the past four years, nearly twice as many white people are killed as blacks, despite blacks performing more murder, manslaughter, and robbery than whites. In fact, as far as total crimes done, white perform twice as many than blacks, and are killed twice as much by police, thus no conclusive argument can be made that black people are being targeted and killed based on race and not by actions"
In round 3, PRO did not dispute any of these facts.
Yeah, I thought that it would be suitable for my first debate to be unrated.
Thank you for this opportunity to debate you! Even if I do not win, I will have learned a lot to strengthen my side for future arguments. You have proven to be a very competent opponent as it took me a while to come up with a clever response.
ATTENTION VOTERS:
I forgot to add one more point in response to the point on King Leopold for R2:
As I established that he was from centuries ago and does not apply to this argument, I forgot to add that he was also not from America and is another reason his actions do not apply.
I apologize for this mistake
I think it was well established that by Recent...America, we agreed upon events that have happened in the recent years and still are continuing today.
Thank you!
Thanks for the help! I'll definitely be using the guide in the future.
My bad, I forgot to include my sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps (Used for data and estimates)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/
Quotes are from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063
Thank you!
Thank you! I am also looking forward to seeing your argument. By the way, this is my first time doing this and debating, so my apologies if I am a complete noob.
I look forward to the debate. To be clear, the debate is on how white people are the most racist group of people, and as a con, I will have to prove that a different race or culture is more racist than white people. Also, I will be debating about actions in the modern era, not about events from fifty years before. This debate is for the modern world, in which you claim that white people are above all else the most racists group of people on earth.