The Instigator
coffeyk87
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Abortion is always immoral

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 4 votes the winner is...
Reformist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 85801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

coffeyk87

Pro

I will be arguing that abortion is always immoral.
Definitions:
Abortion: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
NOTE** Putting aside miscarriages also called "spontaneous abortions".

Unborn: "A human offspring at any stage of development from the moment of conception up until birth." Supplied by me

Human Being: Any living member of the species Homo Sapiens. Supplied by me

Rules:
1:Let's stick to morality and not legality. (although the moral outcome could have legal consequences)
2: No Ad Hominem arguments.
3: Please reference hyperlinked sources back to place in argument. (or place them right after relevant portion of argument)

Opening Argument:
Prem1:"Intentionally killing innocent human persons is always immoral".
Prem2:"All that is necessary to be a human person is to be a human being".
Prem3: "The unborn are human beings".
Prem4:"Abortion intentionally kills the unborn".
Prem5: "The unborn are innocent".
Conclusion: "Therefore, abortion is always immoral".

I will wait for the challenger to present their opening argument and challenges to my premises before going into more detail.
Reformist

Con

Hello im reformist

Because my opponent has not defined morality and morality is subjective i will use my morality

Your opening arguement is your opening argument and you cannot use these arguements as definitions

My morality is that all abortions are good

Killing innocent people is okay in my sense of morality. This means abortions are moral

Because my opinon cannot be changed you have effictively lost the debate

P.S.: Morality debates are impossible unless you give the opposing side a fixed stance on morality. In this case you did not.



Debate Round No. 1
coffeyk87

Pro

I am not sure why my challenger has responded in this way. If the challenger needs clarification of a term I am using, they should just ask for it. Besides, given the fact that we are having a debate on a topic in relation to morality, it is implicit in that fact that morality is not subjective to the individual. Otherwise what is the point of the debate? Perhaps morality could be subjective to the society in which one resides, or more likely (for debate purposes) morality is objective.

The definition of morality to be used in this debate: "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behaviour, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide."

Again, if a definition or clarification is needed, ask for it. Don't just scuttle the debate. I await an actual argument from the challenger.
Reformist

Con

Im afraid all definitons must be included in your R1 introduction


Even we did use that arguement morality is subjective. Your right may be my wrong. Your wrong may be my right

Im afraid thats it

Because you have not given a fixed morality standing for me to have in your R1 into and you still dont understand the basis of individual morality this debate is over.

There was no way you could have won this one. I understand this your first debate so this can prove to be a learning experience
Debate Round No. 2
coffeyk87

Pro

Like I said it is implicit in the fact that we are debating. Who would enter a morality debate like this if it was not?

"Even we did use that arguement morality is subjective. Your right may be my wrong. Your wrong may be my right"<<<< You are making a contestable assumption here. That is not a universally accepted fact. If you are not in this to ACTUALLY debate, then don't sign up.
Reformist

Con

Look at how many debates i have had. And then look at yours. I know what im talking about.

I dont think you understand

Because i have said that the killing innocent people is moral. You have lost the debate.


Your entire debate was rooted in the fact that someone had the same morality as you or more specifically said that its immoral to kill innocent people

Because of this you have lost.

In this site you cant just debate anything you want. You need to understand what you are debating before you create one.
Debate Round No. 3
coffeyk87

Pro

"Look at how many debates i have had. And then look at yours. I know what im talking about."<<< That does not follow necessarily.

"Because i have said that the killing innocent people is moral. You have lost the debate. " Awww, you take issue with my first premise. Well you simply made an assertion with no argument. Like I said, an objective or at a bare minimum societally based level of morality is IMPLICIT in the fact that we are even debating at all. Why can't you just accept that?

"Your entire debate was rooted in the fact that someone had the same morality as you or more specifically said that its immoral to kill innocent people"<<< No I wasn't. I made it a premise and you made an unbacked up assertion that Prem1 was false. Winning a debate that does not make.

If morality debates are pointless to you then don't enter them
Reformist

Con

Unfortunatley for you your "premise" was under opening arguments

Therefore it does not have any effect on the way i debate. If you put my opponent must have the fixed morality that killing innocent people is immoral then this debate would have gone a different way.

However you didnt. I will not change my arguement just because you "want" me to.

And again your premise was under Opening arguement so it has no impact. You were saying that as an arguement. Not a definiton.

Morality debates are pointless but this is a debate. So i want to win.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: traylzac// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Reformist is a troll.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's perception of one of the debaters.
************************************************************************
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
I would vote on this, but I'm not going to.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
The reason for the vote for Pro had be laughing.
Posted by coffeyk87 1 year ago
coffeyk87
Boy you are rich. There is room for moral debates. They are not pointless. It is not a universally accepted fact that morality is subjective to the individual. Go try killing someone and find that out for yourself. If you take issue with a premise then present an argument. I have no problem with you denying premise one, and we COULD have debated that premise, but you didn't want to. The fact that you took issue with a premise is obvious by you accepting the debate in the first place. All the premises were up for debate.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Yes exactly

The debate was pointless

That's the point I was trying to make

You made a pointless debate
Posted by coffeyk87 1 year ago
coffeyk87
Yes Prem1 was not definition, no one was saying that...... You were free to challenge that premise. You were not free to claim victory because you took issue with one of the premises. You should of argued that even if morality is objective it is moral for anyone to kill an innocent person. But like I mentioned in the debate twice, it is implicit in the debate (for the debate purposes at least) that morality was not relative to the individual. Otherwise the debate is pointless.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Well I hope this was a learning experience for you Pro
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bolas 1 year ago
Bolas
coffeyk87ReformistTied
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: Con made an argument that Pro could not rebuttal. By not defining morality in the R1 opening, it left it having many different meanings. And to Con abortion is not immoral making Pro's entire argument null. Spelling and grammar are tied. Each side used good spelling and grammar. Conduct could have been better on each side of the debate. So tie for that category.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
coffeyk87ReformistTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving conduct for Pro, because I think it was poor conduct by Con when he just gave a random definitiion for morality, and argued for something which I'm pretty sure he knew wasn't what Pro was actually talking about. Regardless, Con did give an argument, and Pro wasted his time, arguing with him about the rules rather than giving an actual reason why its immoral.
Vote Placed by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
coffeyk87ReformistTied
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 attacked the first premise of Pro's argument in a correct manner. Morality is indeed subjective. Pro couldn't rebut Con's attack so I have to give the best argument to Con.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
coffeyk87ReformistTied
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: Pro gave a list of premises in round 1 to show how the resolution can be proven. Con attacked premise 1 by arguing that morality is subjective, and killing innocent humans is not immoral subject to him. Pro then provides his own definition of morality. Since morality was not defined in the instigator's R1, the definition of morality is up for debate. Con explains how even using Pro's definition of morality, it still allows for morality to be subjective. So Con's argument that morality is subjective and therefore killing innocent humans is not immoral to him negates the resolution.