A true member of the Democratic Party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance, including acceptance of all rules and definitions stated herein.
Round 2: Presentation of arguments by Pro and Con
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Final rebuttal & closing statements.
There shall be no new arguments presented in Round 4 by either PRO or CON. If this rule is violated, the arguments shall be ignored by the judges and the responsible party shall loose conduct points.
The burden of proof falls on PRO, however, any arguments or rebuttal provided by CON shall have adequate evidence or sourcing or shall be ignored.
True: In accordance with, exact, without variation.
Democratic Party: The official Democratic Party, a political party of the United States.
"At this time": Pertaining to the time at which Round 1 began.
"Anti-abortion": Opposing the decision in Roe v. Wade.
Thanks CON and good luck!
This debate is a follow-on debate of a debate with LiberalProlifer, that was dropped (http://www.debate.org...). However, I took the liberty to change the resolution since this debate was extremely general and vague.
-What is a liberal? Based on the sources LiberalProlifer provided, she meant to make it synonymous with the Democratic Party. However, it really isn"t. Technically, a liberal person is a person that"s political belief system is aligned with liberalism, which is a political movement rather than a political party.  Furthermore, a debate concerning the beliefs of a registered Democrat or someone that simply states that they are a Democrat is not very meaningful either. One can be opposed to every ideal or platform measure of the Democratic Party but still technically be a Democrat. You could, conceivably, have a Regan loving, gun toting, rebel flag wearing, Obamacare hating Democrat. Instead, I aimed to make this debate more meaningful by debating quantifiable principals. I changed the resolution to tackle a quantifiable assertion, someone who is a true member of the U.S Democratic Party. Since we"ve defined true as unwavering and exact, we can affirm that a true member of the Democratic Party would have a strict belief in the platform of the Democratic Party.
-What is prolife? Equally so, prolife is a term that is much too generic. Many prolifers oppose abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Therefore, a prolifer can be pro-abortion. Furthermore, many prochoicers support abortion except in cases of late-term abortion. Therefore, a prochoicer can be anti-abortion.  To have a meaningful debate, I"ve changed the term prolife to anti-abortion, which is defined as "someone opposing the ruling in Roe v. Wade". This is a far more quantifiable position.
PREMISE 1 (P1): A true member of the Democratic Party would believe, unwaveringly in accordance with the official Democratic Party platform.
P2: The current, official, Democratic Party platform supports the Roe v. Wade decision.
P3: A person that supports the Roe v. Wade decision cannot be anti-abortion.
P1 > P2 > P3 > C1
C1: A true member of the Democratic party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion.
A true member of the Democratic Party would believe, unwaveringly in accordance with the official Democratic Party platform
True by the definition of "true", accepted in ROUND 1.
The current, official, Democratic Party platform supports the Roe v. Wade decision.
An excerpt from the official platform of the Democratic Party:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. 
A person that supports the Roe v. Wade decision cannot be anti-abortion.
True by the definition of "anti-abortion", accepted in ROUND 1.
Therefore, we can make the conclusion that:
A true member of the Democratic party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
The fallacy worked by ignoring the original claim and refuting the generalization that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Unlike this fallacy, my argument is quantifiable. It is not a generalization. A member that believes, verbatim, the platform of the Democratic Party cannot be in opposition to Roe v. Wade. CON's assertion would be true only if there wasn't an official Democratic Party platform available. Likewise, this example would not be a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if there was an official platform of Scotsman that stated clearly that sugar shall not be put on porridge.
1) CON states that liberals can be prolife, but the term "liberal" has no standing within this debate and the source CON presented does not mention "liberals".
2) The source that CON provides makes no mention of Roe v. Wade, which was accepted as the "litmus test" for the meaning of anti-abortion, at least in regards to this debate. As discussed before, the term prolife alone is too general. Two individuals that agree that abortion should be legal but rare could say that they are prochoice or say that they are prolife. Since this source doesn't mention Roe v. Wade, it cannot be used to determine if anyone is anti-abortion concerning this debate.
3) This source pertains to, conceivably, registered Democrats. We've established, earlier, that this debate pertains to those with unwavering Democratic ideals; ie members that follow the Democrat platform ver batum. This source even admits that they do not, in-fact. On the opening page it states, "Strategies to revive the Democratic party", thereby admiring that while they believe in what can be considered the "core beliefs" that their beliefs, specifically in pro-life legislation, differs from the official party platform. Furthermore, they admit that "Democrats For Life" include differing views on abortion, including those that believe that abortion should be legal. They state that they "refuse to use a single issue as a 'litmus test' to exclude those who would otherwise seek common ground."  They also state that they "believe in the legal protection of unborn life and a comprehensive approach to reducing the number of abortions in America and around the world."  This certainly doesn't match the debates definition for anti-abortion or pro-life. Does it even match CON's definition for pro-life?
The purpose of this debate was to outline the meaninglessness of a debate that maintains that one can be a Democrat and prolife. First, anyone can be a "Democrat", if all that is required is to be registered. As I stated earlier, a Democrat could be in opposition of every core value or platform measure adopted by the Democratic Party. You could, conceivably, have a Regan loving, gun toting, rebel flag wearing, Obamacare hating Democrat. Secondly, it's meaningless is multiplied by several magnitudes when you consider the generality of the term "prolife". If someone believes that abortion should be legal up until 39 weeks and 6 days, but illegal on the final day prior to full term, can that be considered prolife? If I believe that abortion should be the choice of the mother in cases of rape or incest, does that make me prochoice? If we are to have a meaningful debate, let's talk in absolutes. The Democratic party believes that abortion should be legal, that is a fact. If you do not agree with the party on this term, you are not a Democrat in regard to this belief.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.