The Instigator
Gearheart
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
LB628
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Abortion is always morally justifiable

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
LB628
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,067 times Debate No: 9019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Gearheart

Con

Hello and thanks for reading the first debate I've hosted on the internet!

To begin, I'll outline some framework. If my opponent doesn't present a convincing argument, I must automatically win the round, as I am negating the resolution and they must support it with solid evidence.

I'll turn the time over to my opponent to present his or her first argument. I urge you to vote based solely upon the arguments presented here.

Thank you!
LB628

Pro

Justifiable: capable of being justified
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Anything can be justified. As such, abortion is always morally justifiable because I can always provide a moral reason why it is justified. The content, quality, or any other such standard is irrelevant, because what is being contested is whether or not the argument can simply be provided.
Debate Round No. 1
Gearheart

Con

You've only said that it is always morally justifiable, you haven't proven anything. If the round ended now, because my opponent hasn't warranted a single claim, the round must be given to the negative.
LB628

Pro

"You've only said that it is always morally justifiable, you haven't proven anything. If the round ended now, because my opponent hasn't warranted a single claim, the round must be given to the negative."
----------------------
At the point where I have shown it is always morally justifiable, I am winning this round. My warrant was that I hypothetically could justify abortion no matter the circumstances, because anything can be a justification. As such, abortion is always morally justifiable.
Debate Round No. 2
Gearheart

Con

"At the point where I have shown it is always morally justifiable, I am winning this round. My warrant was that I hypothetically could justify abortion no matter the circumstances, because anything can be a justification. As such, abortion is always morally justifiable."

You have not, however, supported your hypothesis (I would like to emphasize his use of the word "hypothesis") that anything can be justified. You have therefore said nothing and I am still winning the round.
LB628

Pro

1: An argument that can be used in any given situation can be used in every given situation.
2: "The rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the foetus" is an argument that can be used in any given situation.
3: Therefore, "The rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the foetus" is an argument that can be used in any given situation.
The above argument is used to justify abortion. As such, because it can always be applied, abortion is always justifiable.
Debate Round No. 3
Gearheart

Con

You've only stated that something is morally justifiable, but have not provided any evidence supporting your justification. You also goofed up on your wording in number three.

For the sake of argument beyond semantics, I'll focus on his claim that "the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the foetus." What makes the rights of the mother more important? The term "fetus" merely describes a stage of human life, similar to "child." Are the rights of adults more important?
LB628

Pro

A moral justification need not have logic, or even truth behind it. There is a difference between justifiable and just. If it is justifiable, then it can be excused. Because I have already shown that excuses exist, and they can be used in every situation, abortion is therefore always morally excusable, and therefore always morally justifiable.
Debate Round No. 4
Gearheart

Con

A moral justification need not have logic, but valid moral justification does need a firm basis in truth. Because debate must lie within the realm of validity, your argument is invalid.

My opponent stated that abortion is morally justifiable, but provided no examples to show that it was morally justifiable.
Because this is the last round, he cannot bring any new points of contention to the round and, because he has no previous points, I must win the round because of his burden of proof. Than
LB628

Pro

"valid moral justification does need a firm basis in truth. "
The resolution does not ask me if it is validly justifiable. If I were debating and the resolution were "abortion is always morally justified" then yes, it would need to be a valid justification.
However, at the point where I have shown you that an excuse or justification, can always exist for abortion, I have won this round, regardless of how good that excuse or justification is.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
B/A CON
Everything else is the same as MTGandP
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
It doesn't count as a debate unless both sides argue.

Conduct: Unfair BOP. PRO
S&G: TIE.
Arguments: PRO for obvious reasons.
Sources: TIE. Pro had a definition, but that doesn't count.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Pro's logic stands. Con asked for a sweeping justification and Pro provided one. Seeing as Con never specified that the justification must be valid or even logical, any reasoning Pro produces serves to affirm the resolution.

Of course, this is a play on words which I normally would punish in the conduct category. However, given the heavily swayed nature of the resolution, I will likely call it a wash.
Posted by Gearheart 7 years ago
Gearheart
Lifeisgood: I'll have to define them in my first post next time, but I thought that the affirmative should go first in the round.
Nags: I don't really know that anyone understands his logic..
alex: Circular logic?

Thanks for the round, guys, regardless of its ridiculous nature.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
This is what happens when certain terms are not defined properly.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
I'm not really getting LB628's logic on this....
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Hmm..Two words, if they don't get said in the debate ill share them.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Ermm..I didn't see that he was con. Umm in that case Pro will learn not to pick up debates with "always" in the resolution..Well especially this one.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
He will learn not to use the word always in a resolution.
Posted by Gearheart 7 years ago
Gearheart
This is how LD topics are worded. It's fine.

Thanks, LB.

untitled, I wasn't sure how many to include, and the max character limit is small, so I thought five would be fair.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
GearheartLB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
GearheartLB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
GearheartLB628Tied
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