The Instigator
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
TheHunter
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Abortion is Murder.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 10 votes the winner is...
TheHunter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,271 times Debate No: 26040
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (10)

 

emospongebob527

Con

Today's debate is whether or not abortion is murder.

1. Acceptance
2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument
3 & 4. Rebuttals
5. Resolution/Closing Argument

Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1

Rules-
No semantics
No trolling
No profanity
No vulgarity

Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.
TheHunter

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Con

Definitions-

Murder- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Abortion- the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

Main Argument-

Contention 1-
Roe v. Wade-
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Prior to the ruling, the legality of abortion was decided by each state; it was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain cases in 20 states. Roe established that "the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Contention 2- Lawful =/= Unlawful
Lawful- constituted by the law.
Unlawful- not lawful

As expressed above the two definitions are antonyms.......

Contention 3- Murder =/= Abortion
As expressed in the definitions murder is unlawful.
As expressed in C1 abortion is lawful
As expressed in C2 lawful and unlawful are not the same thing.
Therefore, abortion =/= murder
Because lawful =/= unlawful

Good Luck my well-equipped adversary! :)
TheHunter

Pro

I'd like to start this debate by saying that I am very disappointed, as I was looking for a debate on the actual issue of morality. My opponent has decided against that in favor of word play, & I'd like to argue that it is in direct violation of his semantics rule. If it weren't, it would be set up to be highly abusive against pro. If this motion is not granted, however, I have the following arguments...
___________________________________________________________


Abortion: The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

Murder: 1. The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.- Found guilty of murder.


2 a : Something very difficult or dangerous- The traffic was murder.

b : Something outrageous or blameworthy- Getting away with murder.

Outrageous: Grossly offensive to decency or morality.


Main Argument:

Roe V Wade has established that there are to be no restrictions on abortion in the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy [1]. The last week of the second trimester is the 27th week [2]. At this point, a fetus has developed enough to where it can function outside of the mother. By can, I mean it has a 90%, or better, chance at survival [3]. To put this into perspective, you are 3 times more likely to be in a serious car crash than you are to hear about a 27 week old premature infant dying [4]. Terminating this fetus is both dangerous for the mother at this point and perfectly acceptable, according to Roe v Wade, but is almost no different than killing a child seconds before it is born full term. This can be found to meet the definition of outrageous by most accounts, certainly mine. Thus, meeting the requirement for the definition of murder 2a&b. As all definitions I've given can be checked to be valid, and I am making no more of a leap than my opponent by staging this debate, I assert that this is not an argument of semantics because it is equally valid.

I anxiously await my opponents response.




[1]http://realchoice.blogspot.com...
[2]http://www.parenting.com...
[3]http://www.spensershope.org...
[4]http://www.goinsurancerates.com...
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Con

"Roe V Wade has established that there are to be no restrictions on abortion in the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy [1]. The last week of the second trimester is the 27th week [2]. At this point, a fetus has developed enough to where it can function outside of the mother. By can, I mean it has a 90%, or better, chance at survival [3]. To put this into perspective, you are 3 times more likely to be in a serious car crash than you are to hear about a 27 week old premature infant dying [4]. Terminating this fetus is both dangerous for the mother at this point and perfectly acceptable, according to Roe v Wade, but is almost no different than killing a child seconds before it is born full term. This can be found to meet the definition of outrageous by most accounts, certainly mine. Thus, meeting the requirement for the definition of murder 2a&b. As all definitions I've given can be checked to be valid, and I am making no more of a leap than my opponent by staging this debate, I assert that this is not an argument of semantics because it is equally valid."

Rebuttals:

Abortions are rare in the second trimester. Many doctors who perform first-trimester abortions do not perform second-trimester abortions.

Second-trimester abortions are usually done for pregnancies with medical complications. There are usually only a few centers in an area that do them. "Elective" abortions are not done after 23 weeks. Third-trimester abortions (after 27 weeks) are only performed in cases of severely deformed fetuses or when the mother's life is in danger.

My opponent states that abortions done after the 27th week are outrageous because the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb after that period. What he overlooks is, Roe v Wade contends second trimester+ abortions are only done in cases of severely deformed fetuses or when the mother's life is in danger, he states that these abortions are outrageous. When in fact elective abortions aren't allowed in the cases my opponent speaks of. These "outrageous" abortions are necessary and are usually only used in cases of ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the newly
conceived human being implants on the wall of the fallopian tube (or some other tissue) instead of on the
wall of the uterus. As the embryonic human being grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe
blood loss and probably death. In these cases, there is no way to save the child"s life. If we do nothing,
both human beings will die.

In conclusion, 27+ week abortions are not outrageous, but are in fact productive. I would say that not performing 27+ week abortions would be outrageous. They are not elective, but mandatory to save the mother's life, and yes this justifies abortion.
TheHunter

Pro

I'd like to start the round by thanking my opponent for the debate. Things have gotten pretty interesting! I'll go into this round by rebuilding my case against my opponent, and then end attacking his case.


My opponent accepts my definitions.
Hello everyone, I'd like to call to your attention that my opponent has accepted all of my definitions in my argument and is, therefore, bound to them. My opponent cannot wait until the last round an claim he does not/did not accept, because he clearly is arguing the case.

My opponent lies, and is mistaken about Roe v Wade.

Roe V Wade established that no state may deny abortions to their residents, and that regulations can only be made at a state level regaring whether or not they'll allow "Elective" abortions in the 3rd trimester. [2] Meaning, they cannot abolish abortion, but they can decide if they want people to have 3rd term abortions outside of medical health reasons. The list of states that allow 3rd term abortions (without health restrictions) are as followed:
  1. Alaska
  2. Colorado
  3. Hawaii
  4. Mississippi
  5. New Hampshire
  6. New Jersey
  7. New Mexico
  8. Oregon
  9. Vermont
  10. West Virginia



The above said, I'd like to concede to my opponent the idea that abortions in the 27th week are almost always because of health reasons (whether it be the child's health or the mother's health.) In fact, Dr. Warren Hern, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. (abortion doctor in Boulder, Colorado) specifically states, "Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications." [1] However, that's a completely different claim than, "Third-trimester abortions (after 27 weeks) are only performed in cases of severely deformed fetuses or when the mother's life is in danger," stated by my opponent, which is simply false. Audience members and judges, I'd like to direct your attention at word choice, "almost always." Whether it be 8/10 or 19/20, there is still a presentation of that one abortion (or more) that would meet the criteria of outrageous, therefore murder 2b is to aptly applied to the minority. I never made the claim that is was a majority, just that the ones that happen are outrageous. My opponent has not debated the issue of them being outrageous, he basically concedes. He bypasses it in order to make the false claim that it doesn't exist.


The attack on my opponent's case.

The problem with my opponents case is simple, he overlooks the fact that the United States is not the only nation in the world with abortion laws. In fact, his debate doesn't apply to Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Malta, or Vatican City. Abortion is murder in every single one of these places. [3] Where my case gains strength over his, is that no matter where you go an aborted 27 week old is outrageous.


In conclusion.

"They are not elective, but mandatory to save the mother's life, and yes this justifies abortion," stated by my opponent in his closing argumenst, is false, a lie. His sentence is absolute. The truth, as stated by Dr. Warren Hern, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. (abortion doctor in Boulder, Colorado) is, "Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications." [1] Though there is emphasis that most of the time the abortion is not elective, it is equally true that women still have elective abortions in their third trimester.

I anxiously await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.drhern.com...
[2] http://realchoice.blogspot.com...
[3] http://www.fastcodesign.com...

Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Con

"Roe V Wade established that no state may deny abortions to their residents, and that regulations can only be made at a state level regaring whether or not they'll allow "Elective" abortions in the 3rd trimester. [2] Meaning, they cannot abolish abortion, but they can decide if they want people to have 3rd term abortions outside of medical health reasons. The list of states that allow 3rd term abortions (without health restrictions) are as followed:
Alaska
Colorado
Hawaii
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
West Virginia



The above said, I'd like to concede to my opponent the idea that abortions in the 27th week are almost always because of health reasons (whether it be the child's health or the mother's health.) In fact, Dr. Warren Hern, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. (abortion doctor in Boulder, Colorado) specifically states, "Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications." [1] However, that's a completely different claim than, "Third-trimester abortions (after 27 weeks) are only performed in cases of severely deformed fetuses or when the mother's life is in danger," stated by my opponent, which is simply false. Audience members and judges, I'd like to direct your attention at word choice, "almost always." Whether it be 8/10 or 19/20, there is still a presentation of that one abortion (or more) that would meet the criteria of outrageous, therefore murder 2b is to aptly applied to the minority. I never made the claim that is was a majority, just that the ones that happen are outrageous. My opponent has not debated the issue of them being outrageous, he basically concedes. He bypasses it in order to make the false claim that it doesn't exist."

My opponent is a clever one, in fact I will take him up on this: Given his contention that it is there and it does happen we both may be right. Given that 10 states allow third trimester abortions, it is safe to say that abortion is outrageous in 20% of America.

"The problem with my opponents case is simple, he overlooks the fact that the United States is not the only nation in the world with abortion laws. In fact, his debate doesn't apply to Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Malta, or Vatican City. Abortion is murder in every single one of these places. [3] Where my case gains strength over his, is that no matter where you go an aborted 27 week old is outrageous."

My opponents contends that the United States should be concerned with laws of other countries. We should only be concerned with our own laws. Given that we have no control over other countries laws, we should not be concerned about them. Thus, abortion is only an issue for us in our own country.

Conclusion:
Things we can take from this:

1. First and Second Trimester abortion is not murder by every definition.
2. Third Trimester abortion is murder by the second and third definitions in 20% percent of America.
3. Foreign policies shouldn't concern America in the slightest because we have no control over them.

With that being I urge the voters to vote tie because both me and Pro are right.
TheHunter

Pro

My opponent's plan to railroad me into an impossible debate, BACKFIRED.

When I stated the other countries that allow abortion, he states that I am attempting to hold US responsible to foreign law. This is wrong. I will accept partial responsibility for my opponent's misunderstanding and make an attempt to clarify.

"Abortion is murder," was the title of the debate. The first round was my opponent's rules and layout of how this debate is suppose to go. My opponent did not specify that this was to be a debate based on United States law. Being that this is an international debate website, he cannot infer that it was to be automatically implied, because he couldn't guarantee that his opponent would be from the United States. This being said, he cannot (now) attempt to lock the debate down to a specific country because we never agreed on one.


My opponent isn't really refuting anything.



The only thing my opponent is really refuting anything I say. He's either ignoring it or agreeing.

For example:

1) I laid down my definitions and what they mean in regards to my argument. He ignored.
2) I lay out information, cite doctors and make a conclusion that states if I can prove abortion to be outrageous I can liken it to getting away with murder. He accepts all terms and then states,"Given that 10 states allow third trimester abortions, it is safe to say that abortion is outrageous in 20% of America."




To conclude this round:

I'd like to point out that my opponent has failed on 2 levels very essential to his cause, levels that are the building blocks for his case. Thus, he fails to uphold the resolution.

1) He failed in an attempt to railroad me into an easy win for him, because he forgot to specify which country he was talking about in the beginning of the debate, leaving me to choose from any country that has a law on the issue of abortion.
2) He failed to negate my initial argument against his, and ended up agreeing with me stating that nearly a quarter of abortions meet the standard for murder on some level or another.

Abortion IS murder in: Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Angola, Benin, Central African Rep. Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sari Lanka, Ireland, Malta, or Vatican City. (IN LEGAL TERMS)

And Abortion IS legal in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, & West Virginia in the other 2 definitions of the word.

I respectfully urge my judges to vote PRO (& Obama/Biden :-P), based on those principles.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Con

Resolution:

1. First and Second Trimester Abortion is not murder by every definition in all countries where it is legal.

2. Third Trimester Abortion is not murder by the second and third definitions in countries where they can't be elective.

Me and Pro are both right....................
TheHunter

Pro

Con has conceded that there is a loophole to where we are both right. Abortion is not murder, yet it is. His resolution gives no room for such loophole, and said loophole is what I have been trying to show the crowd/voters. In an absolute statement, you have no room for exceptions. For that reason, among the many others present in the debate, I urge a pro ballot in today's debate.

It's been good hunting. Unfortunately, the season is now over.
Debate Round No. 5
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
IwinYoulose333 wrote:
: It's ironic that most other debates on this subject, but with slightly varying topics such as Abortion
: Should not be the Fathers Choice. It seems that those debates usually have the person who is more
: for abortion winning where as when someone comes straight out and says abortion is murder then
: the person who is against abortion wins.

A man shouldn't be able to order his girlfriend to get an abortion. And abortion is not murder. So, there doesn't seem to be any irony in the facts you point out. Also, you're assuming the skill of the debaters doesn't come into it.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 1 year ago
IwinYoulose333
It's ironic that most other debates on this subject, but with slightly varying topics such as Abortion Should not be the Fathers Choice. It seems that those debates usually have the person who is more for abortion winning where as when someone comes straight out and says abortion is murder then the person who is against abortion wins.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
Con instigated a debate about whether the meaning of "abortion" equates to the meaning of "murder." That's inherently a debate on semantics, yet Con tried to impose "no semantics." IMHO, that's bad enough to lose conduct.

Con was trying to trap Pro into taking the debate. Instigating as Con is a ploy to try to transfer the burden of proof to Pro. Pro mistakenly assumed that the debate was about the morality of abortion rather than the semantics. Con should have given definitions in the challenge, but that would have given away the nature of the debate as being about the semantics.

Without definitions proposed by Con, Pro's best approach would be to seize the semantic initiative by defining "abortion" and "murder" in R1. For example, he could argue, "It's common knowledge that when abortion is made illegal, it is deemed a crime distinct from murder. Consequently, we are clearly not debating the straight semantics of the words as defined in jurisprudence. What is meant by "abortion is murder" is that the moral logic that applies to murder also applies to abortion." Then find some quotation on the internet that supports that interpretation.

As it happened, Pro fell victim to the semantic arguments, ultimately conceding that abortion was not always murder. Pro's source only proved that many countries considered abortion illegal, not that they equated it to murder.

Both debaters would profit from reading a few of the past debates on the subject as done by experienced debaters.
Posted by Noradrenergic 2 years ago
Noradrenergic
I would debate the morality of the issue, but I've never been in a structured debate in my life, and would be at quite a disadvantage given The Hunter's performance here. Maybe if nobody else takes up the challenge I'll give it a go, providing The Hunter accepts.
Posted by Noradrenergic 2 years ago
Noradrenergic
I would like to see a debate on the morality of the issue.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
I wish I could vote points for starting a debate as Con and then arguing first. The resolution should have been, "Resolved: Abortion is not murder," and the instigator should have been Pro. Would have saved a lot of confusion and disorientation.

Conduct: Secondguy accused Firstguy of lying, for no reason that I can see. Secondguy also accused Firstguy of trying to trick him. I see no justification for either claim. If anybody was lying, it was Secondguy, but I'll get to that under Sources. Conduct points to Firstguy.

Spelling and Grammar: Not only did Firstguy keep things confused by instigating as Con for no reason, but he kept quoting Secondguy without visually differentiating the quoted material. Over and over, I found myself reading Secondguy's material in Firstguy's post, presented nearly as if it were original with Firstguy. Very confusing. Firstguy, from now on, put a ":" as the first character of a line starting a blockquote. S&G points to Secondguy.

Persuasion is a mess. Firstguy made an unbeatable case from the getgo. Secondguy should never have accepted the debate. But Secondguy claimed (being very generous to himself) that Firstguy had accepted Secondguy's definitions. That's because Firstguy didn't have the finesse to say things like, "My argument stands unrefuted, but _even if_ we were using Secondguy's definitions, his argument would fail for these reasons ..."

But Secondguy somehow talked Firstguy into conceding that Secondguy was partly in the right. Inexplicable. Then Secondguy claims that being partly right is the same as being all right. As if the resolution were something like, "Resolved: some abortion somewhere is murder." Firstguy wasn't nuts enough to concede that. I'll call persuasion a draw.

Sources: Secondguy badly misrepresented his sources. Source points go to Firstguy.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
@TheHunter:

I would, but I'd probably just run skepticism/relativism, and that's not really fun.
Posted by TheHunter 2 years ago
TheHunter
Is there anyone amongst the comment section crowd that would like to debate the morality of the issue?
Posted by angelcoba 2 years ago
angelcoba
Abortion is not murder because it's a pro-choice and plus it's not illegal it's legal. If the mother feels she can't give any good to the baby whether being poor or really rich why go against the decision?
Posted by catholicConservative20 2 years ago
catholicConservative20
Abortion is murder. It stops the act of the growth of a child's life. I mean wouldn't you all rather give the child to an orphanage. It is also not fair for catholic hospitals to have to serve abortions. ITS AGAINST OUR RELIGION! The government isn't allowed to interfere with church. And its dumb for people t have to give tax money to the murder of a child's life.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 2 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to exploit a favorable definition, and Pro demonstrated how his definition was only applicable to the United States, even after asking for no semantics. It's obvious to me, at least, who won the debate.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 2 years ago
MouthWash
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Semantic loophole.
Vote Placed by DeFool 2 years ago
DeFool
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: A spectacle! I agreed with Con going into the debate, but a semantic loophole allowed Pro to negate most of his argument (abortion is murder in some nations, not so in others). Conduct, goes strongly to Con, who remained respectful, and avoided hyperbole (calling his opponent a "liar," for example.) Con remained calm and composed, so the point was secure. Since both sides were able to establish good support for their individual cases, I rated it a tie in those related areas.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is the single stupidest debate I ever read.
Vote Placed by ashleyperez123 2 years ago
ashleyperez123
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: idk
Vote Placed by joshuaXlawyer 2 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This was terrible.
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 2 years ago
JorgeLucas
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate focused too much on law. If I were to tell somebody that murder should be illegal, saying that murder is illegal is not a justification.
Vote Placed by martianshark 2 years ago
martianshark
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters did not argue very good points. Neither of them really argued that abortion is/is not murder, and went off topic. Conduct to Pro since Con basically conceded in the last round. Arguments to Pro for being slightly more relevant. Spelling and grammar was tied, sources were tied.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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: Con instigated debate about he definitions of "abortion" and "murder" and tried to impose a rule of "no semantics." I scored that as a conduct penalty. The debate was close. Pro ultimately failed to provide evidence that any government equated abortion with murder. Making abortion illegal does not make it murder, any more than other crimes all equate to murder. More in comments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
emospongebob527TheHunterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.