The Instigator
ZenoCitium
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LiberalProlifer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A true member of the Democratic Party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 80428
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

ZenoCitium

Pro

RULES:
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.

DEFINITIONS:
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!
LiberalProlifer

Con

You are using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Anyone can be prolife or prochoice. Here: http://democratsforlife.org... is proof that liberals can be prolife.
Debate Round No. 1
ZenoCitium

Pro

Since the first round was for acceptance only, I will provide a rebuttal to your "true Scotsman fallacy" assertion in the following round.

OPENING STATEMENT


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. [1] 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. [2] 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.

ARGUEMENT


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.

P1


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.

P2


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. [3]

P3


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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com...
[3] https://www.democrats.org...
LiberalProlifer

Con

This whole debate is based on the no true Scotsman fallacy. I am a liberal, and I am prolife.
Debate Round No. 2
ZenoCitium

Pro

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy uses rhetoric in an attempt to make an unreasoned assertion. [4] My arguments, however, are very reasonable. Here's an example (from [4]):

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.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
LiberalProlifer

Con

The fact remains that liberals can be prolife. I am a liberal prolifer. Also, here is proof: http://democratsforlife.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ZenoCitium

Pro

Here are the issues with this argument.

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." [5] 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." [5] This certainly doesn't match the debates definition for anti-abortion or pro-life. Does it even match CON's definition for pro-life?

FINAL WORDS



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.

[5] http://democratsforlife.org...
LiberalProlifer

Con

There is an organization called Democrats For Life that you should check out. I have provided a link for you. This group of liberal prolifers proves that so called "true" liberals can be polife just as conservatives can be prochoice (Republicans For Choice). Here is the link: http://democratsforlife.org...
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...It's interesting that you're mischaracterizing my point. I didn't say I'm acting with utter precision and exactitude - I said I literally can't, and that the only choice I have is to either utterly ignore votes that add extra points without reasoning, or remove them. Based on the standards, I do the latter, and I think that on the whole that does more harm than good. If you haven't seen these same standards applied to any other debate, then you haven't been looking through my comment history, because I have posted similar reasoning 8 times in the past 7 days, and that's if you're not counting examples of votes removed because of lack of sufficient explanation on these points (which would amount to basically every vote I remove). There are plenty of votes I don't remove because they are sufficient, though in many cases insufficient votes simply were never reported and therefore were not moderated.

You are more than welcome to contact airmax1227, as he's the head moderator of the site.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
You say every point matters and yet indiscriminatly killed 50% of the points awarded to me. It seems like you wield a fire ax and pretend it's a scapal. Furthermore, I can't say that I see these same standards levied on almost any other debate. Honestly, if it was I think we'd see about 40% of the votes removed.

Who oversees your role as moderator?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Admittedly, I don't have the ability to re-instate the vote, but if I did, it's an all or nothing issue. Either the entire vote meets the standards, or it doesn't. In this case, we're talking about a full 50% of the points awarded, but even if it was just 1 point, that would still be too much. The voter chose to award more points than he was willing to explain. I'm sorry that resulted in a null vote debate, and frankly I thought this debate deserved a decent vote, though it got quite a few poor ones. At the end of the day, we have to apply to same standards to every vote, and every point matters.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
Understood, how can I get in contact with juggle? Would you consider reinstating the entire vote considering the argument points were worth more than the conduct and source points together? It seems flawed to remove the majority of the points awarded based on a minute few points that were contested. This is especially poingent since the mod removal decided the outcome of the debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
There's no available way to remove points without removing the whole vote. That would be nice, but it's up to Juggle, not me.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
Yes, I agree with your assessment and that the points for conduct and sources should ultimately be removed. However, TrueScotsman also awarded PRO points for arguments and provided an adequate reasoning. TrueScotsman identified that PRO made their argument and defended it well, including identifying the error in CON's assertion on the True Scotsman fallacy (agreeing with CON's assessment in ROUND 3). While the points for conduct and source can be removed, it seems that the points for argument should remain.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
If you can find fault in that removal, we can discuss it. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that he didn't justify sources or conduct. While conduct might seem obvious, the voter does at least have to mention why they're giving those points. It doesn't take much space.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
@Whiteflame:

Would you consider reinstating the points for arguments from TrueScotsman? Your reason for removal did not seem to warrant their removal.

Also, in my opinion, the conduct points have an obvious justification. I do understand your mod action, though. A more detailed explanation for conduct should have been presented. For your reference, Con violated the rules set forth in ROUND 1 by presenting his arguments one round earlier than allowed. This was a clear violation and allowed CON to have an extra round for rebuttal.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: brant.merrell// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: ...con can't be serious...

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn"t explain any of their point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TrueScotsman// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Truly a weak performance from Con, very dissmissive and did not understand the fallacious nature of the No TrueScotsman fallacy. I should know. :) Though I don't think Pro's argument was extremely sound, as he relied on the assumption that a true democrat would not dissent on any issues. The fact does remain that there are people who are registered with the Democratic party who are pro-life. Zeno takes this one due to substance and effort at actually making an argument and defending assertions.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't justify his source or conduct point allocations.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.