The Instigator
toolpot462
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Cometflash
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

A man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
toolpot462
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,998 times Debate No: 28143
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (67)
Votes (6)

 

toolpot462

Pro

My full resolution is as such: a man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child as long as a woman can essentially do the same by aborting it.

If a woman finds out that she is pregnant, she has the only say in whether she gets an abortion or not (as long as it's legal). If the man doesn't want to have the child, but the woman does, he's out of luck; he can either stay with the mother and child, or leave and pay child support. Either way, he has some sort of legal responsibility for the child without having any say whatsoever. But a woman can choose to abort and not have to worry about being legally responsible for a child she didn't want.

I propose that as long as a woman has the right to abort, a man should have a similar right.

P.S. I wasn't sure how to categorize this, so I put it in philosophy because it pertains to ethics.
Cometflash

Con

By my opponent's arguments, I'm assuming that his idea behind the resolution is of fairness. As such, I'll be countering his argument of fairness towards his proposal.

Performing an abortion is more than just relinquishing the responsibility to a child. Abortions can come with many consequences to a person's health and well-being. With the man having the right to relinquish his responsibilities as a father, the mother will have to account that into her decision of what to do with such situation, and such right to the man will reflect in her decision. So both did the deed, but the woman will carry all the downside of such of situation.

In this link you can find a list of risks that a woman will be taking by aborting.
http://afterabortion.org...

A man who relinquishes his responsibilities of a child, has nothing to worry about. That person could even regret his action along the way, and try to become part of his offspring at a later time. There will still be chances waiting for him, to the mother, is a permanent decision.

So my opponent's proposal would simply skew the "fairness" from one side to the other.

____
Debate Round No. 1
toolpot462

Pro

I'd just like to state for the record that my opponent has agreed that the current system is unfair.

The specifics of the proposed arrangement haven't been pointed out. Perhaps the man, in choosing to exercise the proposed right, also gives up any chance of future involvement with the child, or perhaps not. In any case, there is a problem of inequity which must be solved, and my opponent has already agreed that sticking to the current arrangement is ineffectual.

Any risks involved in abortion would be incidental and inconsequential to this debate; however:

The same study involving abortion related deaths, cited by my opponent, was conducted soley by the observation of medical records and death certificates for women of child-bearing age; any abortions within a year prior to their deaths were recorded. It states that abortion is four times deadier than childbirth. The same study indicates that women who have given birth within a year are half as likely to die than women who have had no pregnancy within a year (Non-pregnancy is twice as deadly as pregnancy). It indicates that women who have miscarried within a year are also less likely to die than women who have had no pregnancy within a year (Non-pregnancy is deadlier than miscarriage). This is utter nonsense. [http://afterabortion.org...]

I don't deny that abortions come with risks, but this article [http://health.usnews.com...] based on a study that compares pregnancy related deaths to legal abortion related deaths, indicates that abortion is much safer than childbirth. It notes that "complications -- such as postpartum hemorrhage, infections and high blood pressure disorders -- were more common in women choosing to continue their pregnancies." I believe these are all complications mentioned in Con's cited article. What I've read on Planned Parenthood authority [http://www.plannedparenthood.org...] indicates that there are little to no negative psychological effects necessarily caused by abortion, other than possible post-procedural guilt. There is also indication that abortion is the safer course of action for women who suffer from certain conditions that greatly increase risk in childbirth.

My opponent's point is that abortions have risks, where the proposed male "equivalent" would not. Is this supposed to be justification for inequity? Or is he proposing that we insert risks into the male's options, despite the fact that obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition?

I've read about women who lie about being on birth control and even poke holes in condoms to purposely get pregnant, and part of the plan is to trap the father into child support if he doesn't stay, or even if he wants to stay but can't. I don't know how often this happens, and can only assume that it does at all; even if women never do this, however, they CAN. Under the current arrangement, they can do exactly as I described if they so choose. The proposed arrangement would abolish this possibility.

As far as "skewing the '[un]fairness' from one side to the other": under both the current and proposed arrangements, a woman can choose to abort her unborn child even when the man would object. This kind of inequity, alongside obstetrical risks, is also inherent in a pregnant woman's condition and is thusly inevitable.
Cometflash

Con

PRO wrote;
"I'd just like to state for the record that my opponent has agreed that the current system is unfair."


This is incorrect. I simple point what my opponent proposal meant, in hope of clarifications, which with this quote confirms my assumption.
There is a reason why I put fairness in quotation at the end, to point that; the "unfairness", if currently present, would just skew to the other side, as I feel the proposal my opponent established, to be unfair for the woman. I think is clear that he believes the current system is unfair to men, of why I suggest it would be; like skewing from one side to the other.


PRO wrote;
"I don't deny that abortions come with risks..."


This was my point (women has risks vs men no risks), which my opponent clearly agree upon.


PRO wrote;
"My opponent's point is that abortions have risks, where the proposed male "equivalent" would not. Is this supposed to be justification for inequity? Or is he proposing that we insert risks into the male's options, despite the fact that obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition?"


I'm not in support to the whole proposal my opponent has in the resolution, I'm CON to the resolution, I'm not here to try to make a proposal of my own.

My opponent brought this proposal and took the role to defend such of proposal, and show the fairness of his proposal. I have yet to see him making a comparison to his proposal and the current system, and showing why the current system should be dropped and his system instated. If my opponent cannot show this, he failed the resolution.

I'm not here to convince you to a new idea, the current system or fix my opponent proposal, which in this quote he gives the impression to exist, and believe I could give an idea of how to fix the hole in his argument (which he points that if I were to give such of idea, it would be a bad one). I'm just here to show that my opponent's idea does not do what he believes it does, and so far I have done my job.

PRO wrote;
"I've read about women who lie about being on birth control and even poke holes in condoms to purposely get pregnant, and part of the plan is to trap the father into child support if he doesn't stay, or even if he wants to stay but can't. I don't know how often this happens, and can only assume that it does at all; even if women never do this, however, they CAN. Under the current arrangement, they can do exactly as I described if they so choose. The proposed arrangement would abolish this possibility."

This paragraph is a story told by my opponent. There is no source of any kind to support this story, and this story is by memory, which is even less reliable.
Debate Round No. 2
toolpot462

Pro

"This paragraph is a story told by my opponent. There is no source of any kind to support this story, and this story is by memory, which is even less reliable."

I made the point that I could only assume that cases like this happen, and clearly stated that even if it never happens, it CAN under the current arrangement. If you demand a specific case, then I can provide one.

[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

This Wikipedia article is a summary of the legal case State of Louisiana v. Frisard, the details of which can be found here: [http://caselaw.findlaw.com...]

In summary, Frissard testified that Rojas inseminated herself with a condom used for oral sex, and Rojas testified that intercourse was had. "The Jefferson Parish Court found that Rojas met the legal burden of proof to establish paternity, and that Frisard was thus liable for child support."

"There is a reason why I put fairness in quotation at the end, to point that; the "unfairness", if currently present, would just skew to the other side, as I feel the proposal my opponent established, to be unfair for the woman."

If you can make the claim that my proposal would "skew" the unfairness "from one side to the other," you must logically agree that said unfairness exists. If you disagree that the current arrangement is unfair, you think that a woman should be able to intentionally trap a male into fathering her child one way or another, and that a man should have no choice in the matter following his choice to fornicate. I don't feel I need to explain how this is wrong.

"PRO wrote;
"I don't deny that abortions come with risks..."

This was my point (women has risks vs men no risks), which my opponent clearly agree upon. "

Yes, I do agree that abortions come with risks. But your source, which states that abortion is deadlier than childbirth, is simply wrong. Also, I clearly stated that any obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition, and cannot be used to justify the current state of inequity.

"I'm not in support to the whole proposal my opponent has in the resolution, I'm CON to the resolution, I'm not here to try to make a proposal of my own."

Your position that my proposal would be unfair due to obstetrical risks implies you would either have no action taken despite current unrelated inequities (Con position), or insert risks into my proposal to compensate, which is obviously unreasonable.

"I'm just here to show that my opponent's idea does not do what he believes it does, and so far I have done my job."

I would suggest you let the voters be the judge of that.

I believe that my proposal would offer males a much needed choice when faced with an unwanted unborn child. The choice is needed because currently there is none. Does Con reject the fact that a woman can choose to keep her baby whether the man likes it or not? Does he reject that, under such circumstances, the man is trapped into some form of legal responsibility? Does he disagree that this is unfair, since a woman can never be trapped in such a way having the choice to abort? Does he sincerely reject the idea that my proposition would fix the problem of child support entrapment?
Cometflash

Con

I thank my opponent for his consideration and providing a link.

I just read the case. One person claim one thing, and the other claims something different. The man could not prove his case, so he had to continue paying child support. I don't know what convinced my opponent that this would be a good case to present. I was expecting the whole time for the man to prove his case and see the consequences that would follow.

PRO wrote;
"If you can make the claim that my proposal would "skew" the unfairness "from one side to the other," you must logically agree that said unfairness exists. If you disagree that the current arrangement is unfair, you think that a woman should be able to intentionally trap a male into fathering her child one way or another, and that a man should have no choice in the matter following his choice to fornicate. I don't feel I need to explain how this is wrong."

You are again assuming things. I did not say your proposal would skew the unfairness, I said, it would, if unfairness exist. I do not need to know the system to debate this issue, as I'm solely debating the resolution, which is a proposition by you with the intent of fairness. I showed that your proposition is not fair.
You believe the current system is unfair, and yet you propose to replace it with another unfair system.

PRO wrote;
"I believe that my proposal would offer males a much needed choice when faced with an unwanted unborn child. The choice is needed because currently there is none."

The unborn child is there because of the choices of two people. The woman cannot just do as man in your proposal, and simple say. "I do not want any responsibility in this". She is already bonded by what the two accomplished together.
You give a man a right to walk away... now this woman is there, with the unborn baby, and facing the decisions, of not only if she wants/can keep the baby, but all the consequences that will follow (keeping the baby or not). Not only that, but the man that she was with simply walk away, and she is left with all the stress she will now have to face it, while still pregnant. Her emotions will be all over the place because of something called mood swing, and this situation will just make it worse for her.
http://www.marchofdimes.com...

As pointed in the link above, to much stress can cause miscarriage. Therefore, the mother could lose the baby even if she wanted to keep, which could very well be linked to my opponent's proposal if it became law. Even if she can overcome the stress and have a healthy baby, you now have a baby of which it will grow up knowing the father did not want anything to do with.

PRO wrote;
"Does Con reject the fact that a woman can choose to keep her baby whether the man likes it or not? Does he reject that, under such circumstances, the man is trapped into some form of legal responsibility? Does he disagree that this is unfair, since a woman can never be trapped in such a way having the choice to abort? Does he sincerely reject the idea that my proposition would fix the problem of child support entrapment?""

My position is not to answer any questions. My opponent seems to be trying a game of entrapment instead of focus on his case, and defending it.

I have yet to see any new arguments to why; "a man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child as long as a woman can essentially do the same by aborting it."
As I show, my opponent's plan is not fair, and a man relinquishing all his responsibilities does not equal the same of a woman aborting. She cannot relinquish all her responsibilities like a man, she must deal with many issues, before she is not longer responsible to what both help create.

So far this is what we have.

A proposal (which is the resolution).
The resolution does not do what it says it does (as I point, a man relinquishing his responsibilities is not "essentially the same" as a woman aborting).
My opponent's intentions where of fairness, as he believes the current system is not. As I point his proposal is not fair.

My opponent spent his rounds going over what I said, with assumptions that are completely wrong. My opponent then ended the round without any other arguments about his proposal, of which I expected, instead he ended with questions to me. I'm the one who is supposed to present the flaws and possible questions one should be asking about his proposal. I'm not the one with a proposal. Nowhere in the resolution or rules says that I must defend the current system.

My opponent still have one remaining round, but I feel is too late for him to try to present his case, as even know there is no rules saying I cannot make new arguments in the last round, it wouldn't feel fare to do so, as my opponent would be unable to respond.

__
Debate Round No. 3
toolpot462

Pro

**I just want to clarify that I think the proposed choice for the man should only be available during the time the woman can choose to abort. I hope this was mostly a given, and isn't surprising to Con. I apologize for not clarifying this before the last damn round.**

"You are again assuming things. I did not say your proposal would skew the unfairness, I said, it would, if unfairness exist. I do not need to know the system to debate this issue, as I'm solely debating the resolution, which is a proposition by you with the intent of fairness. I showed that your proposition is not fair.
You believe the current system is unfair, and yet you propose to replace it with another unfair system."

I am not assuming anything at all. "So my opponent's proposal would simply skew the "fairness" from one side to the other." - those are your words. My response was to logically gather that you agreed that the current situation was unfair, and your response to this was to say that your words were conditional. I accepted this; when I said "you must logically agree..." I was explaining why I said what I said. That's that.

I have yet to see anything more than a weak case against the fact that my proposal is unfair, supported by nonsensical citations. I feel I have made quite a case as to how the current system is unfair. Furthermore, my argument isn't so much about fairness (as you assumed) as it is about solving a problem, specifically the problem of child support entrapment.

The current system is unfair because under it, women can legally entrap men into responsibility, even in cases where they purposely get pregnant without the father's knowledge. The case I cited shows this to be true; all a woman has to do is claim that there was intercourse, and it's her word over his. She can lie about being on birth control. She can even poke a hole in a condom about to be used for sex to intentionally get pregnant without the man's knowledge. Whether any of this happens or not, the man has no say in the matter of responsibility. If he and his partner both would opt for abortion, he can thank his lucky stars. But in the case where the woman wants to keep her unborn child, the man is utterly out of luck.

I fail to see how you could possibly disagree that the current system is unfair. A woman can simply kill the embryo (whether the man likes it or not, mind you). A man can raise her child with her, give her a substantial percentage of his income, or commit suicide (just a joke, haha).

"My position is not to answer any questions."

So you can't answer these simple questions without conceding, huh? These are rhetorical questions, anyway. Let me break it down for you in a different way.

1. A woman can choose to keep her baby whether the man likes it or not.

2. Under such circumstances, the man is trapped into some form of legal responsibility.

3. This creates the problem of women legally being able to trap men into responsibility for their children.

4. Giving men a choice to relinquish responsibility for an unborn child (embryo) would fix this problem.

"As I show, my opponent's plan is not fair"

The only thing you've done to show that it isn't fair is mention abortion related risks. I've already said, at least twice now, that such risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition, and as such cannot be used to justify the current state of inequity.

"Not only that, but the man that she was with simply walk away, and she is left with all the stress she will now have to face it, while still pregnant. Her emotions will be all over the place because of something called mood swing, and this situation will just make it worse for her."
"As pointed in the link above, to much stress can cause miscarriage. Therefore, the mother could lose the baby even if she wanted to keep, which could very well be linked to my opponent's proposal if it became law."

Did you hear about that guy in Canada who fought for custody of his kids and lost? He set himself on fire because of it. A lot of women face pregnancy without the fathers, all of the time, in fact, and pregnancy in itself is very stressful. I don't think they'll all start miscarrying because suddenly they can't trap people into supporting their children.

"The resolution does not do what it says it does"

Why don't you scroll up a tick and read what I had to say about that in the last round? All you did was repeat yourself and made no effort to rebut.

Con thinks I haven't yet presented a case. I find this to be irritating, yet amusing.

DudeWithoutTheE said:

"This is one of those motions that only appeals to men on the internet.

What would be the real-world consequence of this action? More abortions, and more children living in poverty. So the child is worse off under the pro model whichever choice the mother makes. Also more STIs, since douchey men no longer need to worry about getting women pregnant, sorry honey, it's your problem! Do we really want to give men even more reason to not care about the girls they bang?

Also, the harm of having to financially support a child isn't close to the burden pregnancy places on the mother - and the mother then has AT LEAST as much of a burden post-birth in terms of actual and opportunity cost as the father. You can do certain things to avert greater harms that you can't do to avert lesser ones, that's just common sense. (For example - if you are drunk and kicking seven shades out of me, I would be justified in killing you, but not if you were merely smashing up my car).

This fails on pro-life grounds because, well, more abortions, and pro-choice grounds because you are economically coercing the pregnant woman into making a decision she might well not if not facing utter penury as a result."

You can't say that a man shouldn't have a choice because it would affect the woman's choice.

You act like men are solely responsible for sex, and don't deserve a choice following intercourse. Pregnancy is usually just as much a result of the woman's actions as it is the man's (we're talking about legal sex). "Douchy men," however douchy you consider them to be, shouldn't have to worry about ruining their lives by having consensual sex.

If a child has to grow up under this system without a father (and in poverty, no less), it's because the woman wanted to keep it. She didn't have the resources to take care of it, the man was unwilling to take responsibility for it, and she thought, "what the hell, I'll raise it anyway." I don't see how you can have "more abortions" AND "more children living in poverty" as a result of this system, unless somehow it causes more people to get pregnant. And it won't. It may even effectively deter some women from needlessly getting pregnant.

So, thank you, DudeWithoutTheE, for your impassioned yet thoughtless comment. And thank you much, Cometflash, for accepting this debate and being decent.
Cometflash

Con

Pro wrote;
"I fail to see how you could possibly disagree that the current system is unfair. A woman can simply kill the embryo (whether the man likes it or not, mind you). A man can raise her child with her, give her a substantial percentage of his income, or commit suicide (just a joke, haha)."

The resolution supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.
Two people of opposite sex should know very well that engaging in sex could lead to a child. There is no foolproof solutions for such. Your proposition would just give a green light to those who just want to have sex and not a relationship. The result would be a bunch of girls impregnated, of which would have to deal with the costs of aborting the child. Many would probably not be able to pay for the cost and end up having a child, which would either have to be put to adoption or having the mother forcefully taken the decision to have it and raise.
So like I said, your preposition would just skew things up, very badly so. The man can just go on with his life, like he didn't do anything, the woman would be left with all the consequences.

PRO wrote;
"1. A woman can choose to keep her baby whether the man likes it or not.

2. Under such circumstances, the man is trapped into some form of legal responsibility.

3. This creates the problem of women legally being able to trap men into responsibility for their children.

4. Giving men a choice to relinquish responsibility for an unborn child (embryo) would fix this problem."

1- A woman is bound by the baby, whatever she like it or not, she is trap with such of responsibility.

2- Look at number 1, she is trapped by the laws of nature. A man however, have a chance to scape the laws of man.

3- Entrapment is illegal, and so is a separated issue.

4- Like I pointed above it would create many problems. Again, you point to the issue of entrapment, which there is already a law enforced against such of behavior.

PRO wrote;
"Did you hear about that guy in Canada who fought for custody of his kids and lost? He set himself on fire because of it. A lot of women face pregnancy without the fathers, all of the time, in fact, and pregnancy in itself is very stressful. I don't think they'll all start miscarrying because suddenly they can't trap people into supporting their children."

I cannot see how this is relevant. First of all, I have no details of this issue, since again, you fail to present a source. Second, the parents are not longer together, therefore, the court has to decide, according to evidence shown, who the child should be with. The court would be deciding the best option for the child and no one else. I don't see how this fits with the resolution.

PRO wrote;
"Why don't you scroll up a tick and read what I had to say about that in the last round? All you did was repeat yourself and made no effort to rebut."

You had a one liner followed by a bunch of questions, and I quote and reply on both. The rest was you just going on about technicalities about what I said, and a source to a story no one can really know what happened. Since there were two stories, and the accuser had no prove. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The rest of my opponent's round is to DudeWithoutTheE. I did not know I was having a three way debate.

My opponent seems disengaged from his own proposal and more engaged to what I had to say, or DudeWithoutTheE had to say. I have no idea who that is, or how he/she became part of this debate.

__
Debate Round No. 4
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by toolpot462 3 years ago
toolpot462
This isn't a debate about abortion, rube.
Posted by samurai 3 years ago
samurai
if no one wants to take care of it you kill it? sounds kind of unfair to the baby.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
My proposal is that a man should have a choice, since a woman can choose to abort. I failed to consider the possibility of a woman birthing a child for the father, so I never mentioned it before. Obviously I don't think a woman should be financially responsible for for a child she gives to the father if a man shouldn't be financially responsible for a child the mother keeps.

And nooby, in either case, with no abortion, at least one parent is taking responsibility for their child, unless they put it up for adoption, in which case someone else is.
Posted by noobystok 4 years ago
noobystok
Toolpot, under your proposal clearly states that a "man" should be able to relinquish responsibility. You do not state that a woman could do the same thing. If you did then it would be a much different debate. Also like I said, a world where people don't have to take responsibility for the child they created, man or woman, is one that none of us would want to live in.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
When I responded to important arguments that were left out by Con, but were in the comments, all while remaining in the confines of the debate, Cometflash complained. Now everyone is complaining because I'm responding to comments that are presenting arguments against my case after the debate is over. If that costs me the debate, so be it.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Well, under my proposal I don't see why a woman should be financially responsible for a child she gave to the father. Relinquishing responsibilities as a man doesn't have to be the same as abortion, it's purpose is to give the man a choice.

GorefordMaximillion - nice change to your vote. Cometflash really is a top notch debater, and also knows perfect English!
Posted by noobystok 4 years ago
noobystok
Toolpot, you said that under your current proposal " the woman chooses to give birth to the child for the father, but would have the same freedom from financial responsibility as the man would." Not only is this not the case now, as a woman would be required to pay child support if she refused custody of the child, but you did not state that the man and woman would have equal rights to relinquish responsibility under your proposal. Your proposal said that a man needs a choice similar to that of the woman's choice to have an abortion. Then failed to explain how relinquishing responsibilities as a man is the same as a women choosing to have an abortion. You in fact stated that they are not the same at all.

If your resolution was for both men and women to relinquish responsibilities for an unborn child, then you must state that both will have that not just state it in the comments. Also, if people had the right to relinquish responsibilities for children our tax dollars would be paying a lot more for irresponsible people and their bad decisions. There is a reason that the law holds both parents responsible for the child whether it be through custody or child support payments.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
GorefordMaximillion - if someone makes the claim that there is a God, they have the burden of proof. If someone says that men should have a choice regarding their unborn child (clearly largely a matter of opinion), Pro needs to show why, and Con needs to show why not. If Pro fails to show why, but Con fails to show why not, it should be a tie.

That being said, I believe I DID show how my resolution would not only be more fair, but solve a much-needed-to-be-solved problem, and not just in the comments.
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
iamnotwhoiam, your RFD says:

"No convincing argument for the resolution"

and

" Con was rather cursory with his argument from consequences."

Doesn't this mean con gets arguments (pro not meet BOP) and con looses conduct points?

Just wondering :)
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Under my proposed system -

Neither want the baby. The woman gets a simple, non-traumatizing abortion and they split the cost. Pretty close to equally fair.

Man wants, woman doesn't - woman gets a simple, non-traumatizing abortion and is solely responsible for the cost, but the man loses the child. Unfair for the man.

Man wants, woman doesn't, no abortion - the woman chooses to give birth to the child for the father, but would have the same freedom from financial responsibility as the man would. More fair for the man AS PER THE WOMAN'S CHOICE (but not financially crippling for the woman).

Woman wants, man doesn't - woman chooses not to abort and faces the financial consequences of her actions, but gets to keep the child. A little more fair for the man AS PER THE WOMAN'S CHOICE.

Woman wants, man doesn't, woman is unable to support child - she either chooses to abort or raise the child in poverty - which is more about the child than the man or the woman, and should never happen.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
toolpot462CometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar RFD: In reading the argument I noticed a few S's dropped from "exist" by CON, and no errors of similar character were made by PRO in my reading. Argument RFD: PRO's argument on support entrapment is strong. Further, while the arguments generally reference fairness, the evil done to men is not justified by the natural evil of childbearing risk. It is not justified to gouge out the eyes of the sighted that the world might be fair to the blind, nor to allow entrapment of men because women are imposed with risk. Further CON is just plain WRONG in claiming that it is always the choice of two people to have a child; often enough it's just their choice to have sex, and the child is a natural evil imposed upon them. Sources RFD: CON's source in r1 is clearly problematic in its methodology. PRO's source refutes it well, as the cause of death is far more certain
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 4 years ago
InquireTruth
toolpot462CometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Comet maintained that the proposed system is itself unfair and thus does not eliminate that which it sets out to eliminate. However, the reasons, as pointed out by pro, were because of health risks associated with both delivery and abortion respectively. As mentioned, these inherent risks are always present regardless and would suggest that no system can be totally fair if health risks associated with the condition of pregnancy are considered. Not as articulate as I was hoping, but Pro was still more convincing.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
toolpot462CometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In the context of this debate, I think Pro makes the most convincing arguments for why men should have no obligations to the prenatal child that the pregnant woman doesn't have.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
toolpot462CometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet BOP. Although the current system was agreed to be unfair, pro did not make the case that the resolution would make it more fair. Also, pro argued against comments in debate. (conduct)
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
toolpot462CometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: No convincing argument for the resolution, and Con was rather cursory with his argument from consequences.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
toolpot462CometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments