The Instigator
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
rogue
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is generally 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 5 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,571 times Debate No: 20971
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

KeytarHero

Pro

I wish to debate someone on the morality of abortion. My contention is that abortion is generally immoral. The only situations in which I believe abortions are justified is when the mother's life is in immediate danger (e.g. during ectopic pregnancies) and the child is not yet viable (to where a c-section could be done to save both mother and child).

First round will be for acceptance
Second round will be for opening arguments
Third round will be for rebuttal
Fourth round will be for rebuttal and closing statements.

No semantic arguments, please.
rogue

Con

Seeing as morality is subjective I believe it will be the one with the most rational argument who wins. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting my debate. As she is a veteran debater here on the site, I imagine she will offer quite the challenge.

On Morality

Before touching on abortion, I would simply like to touch on morality. There are certainly some truths which are subjective (e.g. your favorite ice cream flavor, sports team, or band). However, there are some truths which are objective -- they are true regardless of opinion. For example, it was once commonly believed that the world was flat but this did not change the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. It is my contention that the killing of an innocent human is wrong, innocent meaning that they have not committed a crime or an act deserving of being killed.

The crux of my argument rests on the scientific and philosophical facts that what is present from fertilization is a living human, and killing an innocent living human is wrong. In order for Con to win the debate, all she has to do is prove that a preborn organism that dwells in a human uterus is not a living human.

Scientific Evidence.

It is a scientific fact that what is present when an egg is fertilized is a new, unique human being. All of the necessary qualifications for life are present, including (but not limited to) response to stimuli, growth, cell division, and respiration. We can know that a preborn human is alive because it grows.

Secondly, we know it is human because it has human DNA, and it is the product of human parents. Living beings reproduce after their own kind: cats have cats, dogs have dogs, and humans have humans. Never in the history of humanity have two humans procreated and the organism dwelling within the mother was non-human, then became human at some other point in its life.

In fact, embryologists (who are the experts on the topic) are in agreement that once the sperm and egg come together, a new, unique human is brought into existence. This is a quote from the most used textbook on embryology. The authors state: Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1]

Philosophical Argument.

All humans have an inherent right to life. The right to live is the most basic and fundamental right of every human being. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A preborn human has not committed a crime, and certainly has done nothing worthy of being killed for it.

Africans were once discriminated against and made as slaves. Women were once discriminated against and viewed as property. Neither African-Americans nor women were allowed to vote at one point in our nation's past. The Jews were discriminated against during the Holocaust. Our world is filled with discrimination (and note, I'm not comparing abortionists or women who get abortions to Nazis, this is merely to illustrate the discrimination that has gone on in the world). The unborn are still discriminated against and killed through the act of abortion.

Humans are valuable based on the very thing that they are. There is no substantial change that occurs during the passing from womb into the world that suddenly bestows value upon a human. Value is an intrinsic property of humanity and as such, it is not something that is acquired. No one would argue that an infant is more valuable as a human than an adult, so obviously value is not something humans get "in degrees." You are either valuable or you are not.

I look forward to Con's response on the matter.

[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
rogue

Con

On Morality:

I agree that some truths appear to be objective such as the shape of the Earth. Since we are limited to the subjective experiences we interpret from our five sense, we can never truly know any objective truth. But, as we have empirical evidence to support the Earth being round, we can conclude that is is. This is not so for morality. There is no empirical evidence showing what is and is not moral. We have some basises for morality such as the Bible, Quran, Torah, the 8 Fold path, so on and so forth, but none of them can be backed by anything more than faith that they are the objective truth. Faith is not empirical evidence. Since we have no way of objectively determining what is and is not moral, we can readily conclude that morals are subjective, or a matter of opinion.

I do not have to prove that the fetus is not a living human, just that killing it cannot objectively be considered immoral.

Scientific Evidence:

I do not dispute that a fetus is alive or that it is human. I just believe this to be irrelevant.

Philosophical Argument:

Pro speaks of every person's right to life. First I will contend that the fetus is not a person. What makes a person? Is it not having a personality, people that love you, affecting people, emotions, a life? A fetus does not have these things. It doesn't feel anything. Clearly no one cares about it since the mother wants to abort it. We do not have a shortage of adoptable children in the U.S. and especially in other countries. Let's get those children adopted before we add more family-less children to the world.

The one person in this situation is the mother, and by forcing her to carry a child, you are putting her life at risk. Pregnancy is an extremely dangerous medical procedure, more so than abortion. Not only is it physically dangerous, but mentally. Carrying a baby for nine months and giving it up can lead to huge mental problems as can taking care of a child you did not want. The mother's future is also at risk. She could easily lose important opportunities career-wise that will not come again. The mother who has people that care about her and has worked for her future is more important than the couple of cells that makes up a human fetus.

In our world, it is by no means held up that every human has a right to life. If that were so, we would have no death penalty, nor would we teach soldiers or policemen to kill. When one human threatens the life of another, we destroy it. The fetus does this to the mother, and she is more important.

Also, under the U.S. constitution, which we are bound to as Americans, it is deemed unconstitutional to keep someone from having an abortion. You "right to life" is not supported legally, where as a woman's right to her body and to privacy is.

Until Pro can prove that humans are of value just for being humans, his argument goes unsupported. It is a mere assertion without anything but opinions to back it.
Debate Round No. 2
KeytarHero

Pro

On Morality

Truth doesn't change based on perception. In keeping with the example of the Earth, we could still be completely wrong about the shape of the Earth but that wouldn't change its actual shape. We have much evidence to show us what shape the Earth is so we can now be reasonably confident, since we've seen it, what shape the Earth actually is.

We do have empirical evidence for objective morality. People feel guilt over wrong actions. While there are some things which people can disagree on, such as whether or not a little white lie is bad, there are things which anyone would feel bad after committing, such as rape or murder. In fact, if someone can commit a murder and not feel anything, they are labeled a sociopath and put away in a mental institution. We can also see that there have been objective beliefs all throughout history. Looking back at ancient cultures like the Greeks and Egyptians, we can see that even they believed that one should generally live unselfishly, although they might disagree as to whom one should be unselfish toward (e.g. a relative, friend, or stranger).

Scientific Evidence

I am glad that Con accepts the scientific evidence of the life and humanity of the preborn of our species. If she contended it, she would be arguing against modern science and even other pro-choice philosophers.

However, I still contend that now that the question of the life and humanity has been confirmed, abortion should be considered immoral. If the preborn were not humans, then no reason would be required. If the preborn are human, then no reason would be sufficient.

Philosophical Argument

Here Rogue is arguing some pretty arbitrary definitions for personhood. For example, if having a personality makes you a person, then value would be in degrees. A person with a favorable personality would be more valuable than a person with a mean disposition. This would allow for legal discrimination.

How about people that love you? Obviously Rogue would claim that homeless people, or orphans, or widows whose family have all died off should not be considered people. Again, if people loving you were the criterion for personhood, then those who are more loved would be more valuable than those who are less loved, or not loved at all. In Dickens' A Christmas Carol, it would have been morally justifiable for Bob Cratchet to have killed Ebenezer Scrooge rather than continue to work for him.

What about affecting people? Preborn humans affect their mothers emotionally, as well as physically once they start kicking. However, again, affecting people is arbitrary. A popular musician would be more valuable than a little old lady who goes to work and barely ekes out a living.

How about emotions? Again, more arbitrary criteria. There are some who don't express emotions, and those who do. Those who do express their emotions would be more valuable than those who don't. Someone who cries at a sad movie would be more valuable than one who didn't.

Having a life? That would disqualify children. A child doesn't really "have a life" until they turn five years old and go to Kindergarten. But again, those who live a more fulfilling life would be more valuable than those who don't.

In point of fact, the pro-life position is the non-discriminatory one, because we believe that all people are valuable, from fertilization to natural death.

In reality, "person" is just a legal term that allows for legal discrimination of a group of humans. Blacks were once considered subhuman, only considered 2/5ths of a person for voting purposes. They were non-human, which allowed white people to sleep at night and mistreat their slaves severely.

Pregnancy is actually a very safe thing to undergo. In fact, it's more dangerous to drive a car than it is to undergo pregnancy. [1] You have a 1 in 6,000 chance of dying in a car accident. The chance of a woman dying during a pregnancy is 13 in 100,000. This translates into 1%. A woman would not be risking her life by continuing a pregnancy because the chances that it would kill her are negligible. Besides which, only first trimester abortions are safer than childbirth (and only marginally safer). The risk of dying from abortion greatly increases in the last two trimesters.

I agree that carrying a child and giving the child up can be problematic mentally, but why is that more difficult than having your child killed outright? Why would killing the child be an easier decision than giving that child away and giving her a chance at a good life?

Now Rogue is showing that she doesn't really understand what a fetus is. A fetus is a preborn human in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. While the child is an embryo, they already look as we do. They are only "a couple of cells" right at the very beginning before any surgical abortions even happen. Abortions that kill a fetus are much, much rarer than abortions that kill an embryo.

But again, looking like us doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes valuable, or the "elephant man" should not have been considered human.

Here is what is the most important: Preborn humans are living members of our species, humanity. There is no argument you can use to take away its value that also couldn't be applied to a child outside the womb, or that couldn't be used to discriminate against other people outside the womb.

In our world, people do have an inherent right to life. The criminal who is killed because he murdered someone has forfeited his own right to life. He is not innocent, like the child in the womb. He is a guilty, convicted murderer.

Soldiers and policemen are only allowed to kill in extreme situations. Policemen are not allowed to shoot unless fired upon first (and sometimes not even then), and the military is trained to protect citizens in the case of war.

I have already shown how the preborn human is not threatening the life of the mother.

Actually, the right to an abortion is not supported by the Constitution. Would you please make an argument from the Constitution that would make preventing abortions unconstitutional?

I have already shown that humans have value just by virtue of being human. It is wrong to kill an innocent human, who has committed no crime, certainly not one deserving of death. Simply being a member of humanity makes one valuable. Any other argument to establish value would cause it to come in degrees and would allow us to discriminate against other people outside the womb. Value does not come in degrees. You either have it or you don't, and you don't suddenly receive value at some arbitrary point in gestation or after birth.

[1] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;
rogue

Con

On Morality:

"People feel guilt over wrong actions."- That just means that most people have a sense of morality, not that all morals are the same. Plus, can we prove that everyone ACTUALLY feels guilty and that they aren't just saying it?

"While there are some things which people can disagree on, such as whether or not a little white lie is bad, there are things which anyone would feel bad after committing, such as rape or murder."- This is just false. Then there are lots of records of people committing murder and not feeling bad about it because the person they murdered wronged them. Some rapists are so messed up that they do not feel guilty for what they did. Other people just do not feel guilty for murder for one reason or another. Morality is not consistent or set in stone.

"We can also see that there have been objective beliefs all throughout history. Looking back at ancient cultures like the Greeks and Egyptians, we can see that even they believed that one should generally live unselfishly, although they might disagree as to whom one should be unselfish toward."- Cultures have similar moral standards because we are all human and have similar interests. Morals keep order. The greeks had a much different set of morals than we do. Being gay was not abnormal or considered bad in their culture. Women were second class citizens. They had servants and slaves. Then there is the Hindu culture with the caste system in which the "untouchables" are raped and murdered and no one feels guilty about it. Those in the caste system are not socio or psychopaths, they just have a different sense of morality. Slavery, sexism, racism, genocide: they are all things we consider to be terribly immoral but were moral to many people who were not psychopaths or sociopaths. They were normal in their culture and their time. Clearly morality is subjective.

Scientific Evidence:

"I still contend that now that the question of the life and humanity has been confirmed, abortion should be considered immoral. If the preborn were not humans, then no reason would be required. If the preborn are human, then no reason would be sufficient."- Now my opponent asserts that only human life is sacred, that only humans have a right to life. We kill animals, plants, and living things all the time. If humans have a right to life, mustn't they as well? Or is human life for some reason valuable and important while other life is not?

Philosophical:

"For example, if having a personality makes you a person, then value would be in degrees. A person with a favorable personality would be more valuable than a person with a mean disposition. This would allow for legal discrimination."- Not at all. That is not what I was saying. I am saying what makes someone a person is not their species or the fact that they are alive, but their personality. By those standards my cat is more of a person than an unborn fetus and rightly so. I honestly care more about my cat than an unwanted fetus. Can you say differently about your pet? Or about your friends? Do you care about an unborn fetus as much as you care about your friends?

"Obviously Rogue would claim that homeless people, or orphans, or widows whose family have all died off should not be considered people. if people loving you were the criterion for personhood, then those who are more loved would be more valuable than those who are less loved, or not loved at all. In Dickens' A Christmas Carol, it would have been morally justifiable for Bob Cratchit to have killed Ebenezer Scrooge rather than continue to work for him."- Um, no. Your affect on others is not a criterion for personhood like personality, but it does make one more important that another. When a homeless person dies, only those who knew him feel sorrow. When an average person dies, all of their friends and family feel sorrow. When a president dies, the whole country is affected. He is indeed more important than we are because he has such a profound impact on so many people. That is why he is under such strict guard while we are not. The mother has a much bigger affect on people than an unborn fetus because she has people who love and care about her whereas the fetus does not. This makes the fetus very unimportant. Although, a wanted fetus is important because it is loved, wanted, and cared for.

"However, again, affecting people is arbitrary."-If that were true than we should have just as much protection for average citizens as we do for the president. If that were true than we wouldn't save the women and children first and the elderly last. This does not mean that we should not try to treat people equally, but it is pretty clear that in our culture, some are more important than others.

"Those who do express their emotions would be more valuable than those who don't."- Not at all. Why does everything become a point system with you? I never said "those who have the most emotions or have better personalities are more of a person than those that don't", just that emotions and personality are what make you a person, not your species or the fact that you are alive.

"Having a life? A child doesn't really "have a life" until they turn five years old and go to Kindergarten. those who live a more fulfilling life would be more valuable than those who don't."- I disagree. They have started a life with their family and friends. Who said anything about fulfilling lives being more valuable?

"the pro-life position is the non-discriminatory one, because we believe that all people are valuable, from fertilization to natural death."- No. Your position asserts that an unborn fetus is more important than the mother carrying it. The mother's life is at risk in so many ways, as I mentioned before, when pregnant.

Btw, blacks were considered 3/5s of a person, not two.

"it's more dangerous to drive a car than it is to undergo pregnancy. [1] You have a 1 in 6,000 chance of dying in a car accident. The chance of a woman dying during a pregnancy is 13 in 100,000. This translates into 1%."- I would like to see you cite that.

Also, just because the mother doesn't die during pregnancy doesn't mean that pregnancy doesn't have other possible bad side effects. Just naming some: post-pardum depression, high blood pressure, placenta increta, placenta percreta, problems with different Rhs, infertility, group B strep, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, placental abruption, Bell's palsy, or even breast cancer. Also a pregnancy can develop into a high-risk pregnancy if it is an ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy, a premature birth.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org...
http://www.dcdoctor.com...

What about the mental effects of giving a baby up for adoption?

It is extremely hard for a mother to give up a baby they have carried for 9 months and can have severe mental side effects.

http://www.birthmothers.info...

"but why is that more difficult than having your child killed outright?"- Because a mother does not feel a bond to a fetus when it is in its first trimester. The mental side effects occur from carrying a baby for so long.

Alright, so I should have used the word embryo.

"There is no argument you can use to take away its value"- What gives humans their right to live or their value? Why does that apply to only humans?

"The criminal who is killed because he murdered someone has forfeited his own right to life."- Who decides that? These are mere assertions.

Constitutional?

http://www.oyez.org...

Pro has completely forgotten that pregnancy puts the rest of the woman's life on hold for a long time and can take away valuable opportunities that she will likely never get again.

Pro keeps saying that everyone has a right to life just for being human and that some people forfeit their right to life by committing crimes. Where is he getting these rules?
Debate Round No. 3
KeytarHero

Pro

On Morality

Actually, my point about feeling guilt was that people feel guilty over many of the same things. For example, if one does not feel remorse at having taken a life, they are considered sociopathic.

You actually reaffirmed my point with your second paragraph. I mentioned that there are people who don't feel remorse. We consider them psychopathic and lock them away in a mental institution. Most people consider murder and rape wrong. It's pretty difficult to argue that they are right. Also, killing someone is not always murder. Killing can be done out of revenge or justice. Regarding the person who has been wronged: he would feel guilty if the wrongdoer only stole something from him. He would not feel guilty if the wrongdoer killed his wife. People still regret crimes of passion.

Morals may keep order but there are many moralistic beliefs that go against human nature. Human nature is selfish, and self-preservation is our most basic of instincts. Yet there are people who give their own lives to protect strangers. Morality is not simple "herd instinct." There is an objective moral standard that exists, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

Scientific Evidence

Actually, I didn't assert that only human life is sacred. Rogue has created a strawman argument against me. I asserted that human life is sacred, not that only human life is sacred.

What I meant by my assertion was that if the thing growing in the womb is not yet a living human, then no justification for abortion would be necessary. I was not asserting it is okay to kill animals.

Philosophical Argument

Rogue has failed to show how having a personality makes one a valuable living being and not something to just be thrown away like yesterday's garbage. Cats may have "personality," but they are not sentient on the same level as humans. They cannot question their place in the universe or create technologies, or become better than is in their nature to become. Yet Rogue would place more value on a cat that can never be more than a cat, and not on a young living human. If having personality was how value was judged, then it should be morally justifiable to kill someone in their sleep when they are inactive and have no personality.

The problem is that Rogue is offering arbitrary standards for value, standards that don't matter one way or another. I do care about an unborn fetus as much as my friends. In fact, I have a friend who miscarried a child and it affected both him and his wife greatly. The loss affected them as it would have a born child. So yes, preborn humans have great effect on those of us outside the womb.

Rogue has also failed to sustain her argument for being loved. After all, a homeless person is just as valuable as a human being as the average person or the President. She claims "those who knew the homeless person" would mourn him, but the same is true of the average person or the President. The only difference being more people know each successive person, and this again proves my point that Rogue's criterion means that value comes in degrees, which it does not. You are either valuable or you're not.

This is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. Something that is intrinsically valuable is valuable as an ends to itself, like happiness. Instrumental value is something used to bring you something intrinsically valuable. If happiness has intrinsic value, video games have instrumental value. They bring you happiness.

I am not a sports fan. A Cal Ripken, Jr. rookie card may be worth thousands of dollars to a collector or a sports fan, but it's worthless to me. Whatever the perceived value of the baseball card is, it is still only a piece of cardboard. If I rip it up, the printer is only out a dollar or two. The same, but reverse, is true of humans. One may perceive a preborn human as worthless because they are unwanted, and one may cherish her because she is her child. Whatever the perceived value of the preborn human is, that doesn't change their intrinsic value. They are a member of humanity, an intrinsically valuable species, and there is no mystical event that happens in the 8 inch journey down the birth canal that suddenly adds value to a human. After all, if a woman doesn't want her child but delivers her anyway, the child will still be unwanted by the mother. So obviously being wanted doesn't affect your worth one way or another.

The president is under strict guard because 1), there are people who want him dead, and 2) he has more instrumental value as our president than the average citizen. He is responsible for running our country, which is something that I am not qualified to do. So if the president and I are ever in mortal danger, the president is likely the one to be saved. This doesn't mean he's more valuable as a human, just that he's more instrumentally valuable to our nation.

Everything becomes a point system with me because of the arbitrary nature of your criteria. In fact, in President Lincoln's famous speech when he freed the slaves (I'm paraphrasing here), if you believe being white gives you the right, then take care because you'll be a slave to anyone with fairer skin than your own. If you believe it is intelligence, take care again: you'll be a slave to anyone who comes along smarter than you. It's the same principle. If you assigned arbitrary criteria for personhood, you are bound by them, as well.

You are discriminating against humans in a stage of being less developed than you. They simply haven't developed all of these things yet. But that's not a bad thing -- even outside the womb, we don't actually stop developing until we're in our 20's.

Born children have not "started a life" with family and friends, they have started life outside the womb with them. But they do not have a valuable life worth saving, under your criteria.

You mistake the pro-life position. The pro-life position is that all humans are created equal (sound familiar?). All humans are equally valuable, from fertilization to natural death. Women are valuable, too, and every step should be taken to ensure that a woman can care for her child and that the pregnancy proceeds as smoothly as humanly possible.

The mother's life is not at risk, as I have indicated (and will do so again).

I mistyped, sorry. Blacks were considered 3/5ths a person for voting purposes, but that doesn't negate my argument that they weren't considered human.

I actually got the number of 13 in 100,000 from a debate with a pro-choicer (that was the number he used). Upon further research, the number is closer to 251 in 100,000, but the number is declining. [1] This still translates into less than 1%. In fact, that number is still a bit misleading because deaths caused by abortions are taken into account.

I have already explained why humans have value. They are intrinsically valuable. Value is not something gained at some arbitrary point in their lives.

Actually, Roe v. Wade was based on lies. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, stated the numbers for abortion-related deaths were greatly exaggerated and he knew the numbers were false. [2]

Also, the 14th Amendment talks about citizenship, but it is illegal to kill illegal immigrants. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee abortion because even non-citizens are protected by law.

I have not forgotten anything. I just don't see why killing someone should be acceptable because leaving them alive may be an inconvenience.

I am running low on characters. I believe I have successfully shown why abortion is immoral, because it takes the life of an innocent human.

[1] http://www.thelancet.com...(10)60518-1/fulltext
[2] From Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979
rogue

Con

I apologize for taking this debate right before my life got really hectic and I knew that it was going to. I forfeit because it it too emotionally taxing for me to debate about something that I am passionate about when I am already stressed out. Everyone should vote Pro. I hope to possibly do this debate again at a later time.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Yes, Con pointed out my mistake and I corrected it in the last round.
Posted by LibertyCampbell 5 years ago
LibertyCampbell
"only considered 2/5ths of a person for voting purposes."

3/5, actually.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by LibertyCampbell 5 years ago
LibertyCampbell
KeytarHerorogueTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Last Round.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
KeytarHerorogueTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. If I have time, I will come back and read the arguments to add input on the actual arguments.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
KeytarHerorogueTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Rouge forfeited, unfortunately.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
KeytarHerorogueTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was rather impressed with Pro's dissection of Con's argument against the personhood of a fetus.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
KeytarHerorogueTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: She gave up.