The Instigator
Teemo
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
edibleshrapnel
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Abortion is generally immoral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Teemo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 52865
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Teemo

Pro

Hello. I notice you are a supporter or abortion. So i am challenging you to this debate. Abortion is generally immoral.

General: mostly, basically

If you accept this debate, you must accept the rules established.

Rules:

1. first round you (the opponent) must write your opening statements. In the last round, you must write "thanks for the debate" and nothing more.

2. no plagiarism

3. no copying from previous debates

4. no forfeiting

5. no making your own definitions (only applies to opponent)

6. no profanity

7. no personal attacks

8. no complaining in the comments section after you accept

9. no concessions before round 3


ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE RULES ESTABLISHED, FAILURE TO COMPLY TO THE RULES WILL RESULT IN A 7 POINT DEDUCTION UNLESS FORGIVEN BY OPPONENT OR FUTHER SPECIAL REASONS WHICH SHALL BE DISCUSSED IF SUCH OCCURS.
edibleshrapnel

Con

My opening statement: Abortion is a personal choice, and my opponent will explain how it is immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
Teemo

Pro

Refutations

"My opening statement: Abortion is a personal choice, and my opponent will explain how it is immoral."

Abortion being a personal choice doesn't make it moral. Killing for no reason is a personal choice, does that make it moral?

CONTENTION 1: LIVE

A fetus is a living organism.

"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilizationA533;the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyteA533;usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced." [1]

As you can see, upon fertalization, a fetus immediatly becomes a human being. This human being has done nothing wrong, considering he wasn't even born yet. So this human is innocent. So having an abortion is the same as killing the baby. Killing the baby who is innocent is wrong. It is unfair. It is as if you were to kill your 5 year old boy because you don't want him anymore. It is immoral. Since the baby is alive, and innocent it is immoral to kill it.

CONTENTION 2: CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FALSE

The top 6 reasons for an abortion are the following: [2]
  • Birth control failure
  • inability to support child
  • Unwanted pregnancy
  • Birth defects
  • Rape
  • Mental defects to mother


The thing is however, all of these reasons are not acceptable if you are going to kill an innocent being. I will adress each one of these 1 by 1, and explain why none of them are acceptable.

Birth control failure

Just because you weren't planning to have a baby does not give you the right to kill one. Regardless of birth control failure, having unsafe-sex is their burden, and they must accept it. It is not fair to kill someone due to the fact your meds weren't working.

Inability to support child

It is immoral to kill an innocent being due to the fact you cannot support them. Put them up for adoption, so they can at least live in a family that can support him. It is not just to kill him just because you have little money.

Unwanted pregnancy

Because they had unsafe-sex, it is their burden to have a child. Just because you don't want to be pregnant doesn't give you the right to kill the child. It's like if you don't want to coach a hockey team, so you kill all the players. It is immoral. You put your own selfish desires before an innocent child, and killed them.\

Birth defects

Just because they don't have perfect health does not make it acceptable to kill a child. Let him live with it, accept it. It is not right to kill an innocent human because they aren't perfect.

Rape

Rape is one of the main reasons people think abortion is acceptable, however it isn't. Aborting due to rape is immoral. Just because you got raped does not mean you kill the child. It is as if you got raped, weren't pregnant but killed your daughter. It is immoral. You should take care of the baby, regardless if you are raped or not. Aborting the child would be your personal greedy wants before another life. Furthermore this life is innocent. This is highly immoral as well.

Mental defects to mother

Another immoral reason to abort a baby. Just because it may effect your health does not give you the right to kill it. It is as if you were ill, so you killed someone to make yourself feel better. It is immoral. Especially since the life is innocent. Furthermore, with the risk of abortion, the mother may get mental defects either way. Also, it is impossible to be 100% sure that she will get mental defects, so it is unfair to kill an innocent human because of a small posibility you will get ill.

CONCLUSION

Abortion is immoral in most cases (generally) due to the fact that you are killing an innocent living human for your own selfish needs. It is unjust, and unfair. In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that in most cases abortion is good.

Sources:
1.http://www.princeton.edu...
2.http://www.webmd.com...;

edibleshrapnel

Con

You mistook the intention of my statement "abortion is a personal choice". It's mean that whoever wants one should decide on their own account. Making abortion illegal is the same as dictating ones future, because that's exactly what happens with an unplanned child.

I will begin my rebuttal, you state that a fetus is a living organism. True. But a fetus does not exist mentally. It is merely a fertilized egg. When a child is born however, any injuries or attempts at harm can be considered criminal because it has breathed, it can make sounds, it can somewhat think. You also forgot to define "immoral". The words meaning between you and me can be different, and I'd like to know where you quoted that long scientific column from.

"Birth control failure"

Most People go through birth control because they can't support a child. This is shows wisdom and initiative towards caring as a mother. If she willy nilly has children, or is denied an abortion because it is illegal, she will not be ready financially, therefore the baby will not be cared for properly, showing how inconsiderate pro-lifers are of the child.

"Inability to support a child"

This is actually, for the same reasons I stated above, why woman should abort. They are acknowledging they could not support a family and they are taking the initiative by removing the fetus, not a human being.

"Unwanted pregnancy"

You have no idea to the thoughts of a mother going through an trauma like an unexpected pregnancy, unless of course you have experienced one, then I would be clueless as to why you would take the chances of raising an unexpected child.

"Birth defects"

Define perfect health. And another thing. Pre-natal scanning determines the look of said fetus, it cannot diversify birth or mental defects, therefore making this point completely invalid.

"Rape"

This has to be the most ludicrous thing I've read in an abortion debate. I'm appalled you said "Just because you got raped does not mean you can kill the child". How seriously do you think about rape? Do think a woman should have a child from a man she has no connection to? Every time she looks at the child, she will be reminded the wrongs done to her, trauma like that's drives good people to suicide. Her family would want the baby aborted, they want a grandchild who's father they know. You insinuate that when a woman aborts a child conceived through rape, its greedy. I find that absolutely appalling. Reconsider what you said here, I'm lost for words.

"Mental defects to mother"

I don't think people with mental disorders kill for pleasure, especially something inside of them that has no physical appearance to yourself. Of course, there are some mental disorders that cause that, but even then I'm sure they would be noticeable.

I don't believe I need a platform, my rebuttals serve for that purpose. Overall my opponents has misused the word "Immoral" many times, mostly in her section about rape. She really only has 4 points, and they all revolve around the idea that the human fetus is "self-aware". She insinuates that murdering your brother is the same to surgically removing a human fetus. After all, murder is murder, right? I ask again, define Immoral, and broaden your horizons, removal of a fetus is not a crime in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of a functioning society, and the eyes of the mother. Woman should have a birth planned out, not just for themselves but also for the baby, if they don't, then and only then are they being morally selfish.
Debate Round No. 2
Teemo

Pro

Thanks for the response.

REFUTATIONS

"Making abortion illegal is the same as dictating ones future, because that's exactly what happens with an unplanned child."

This debate is about whether or not abortion is immoral, not if it should be legal or not.

"I will begin my rebuttal, you state that a fetus is a living organism. True. But a fetus does not exist mentally. It is merely a fertilized egg. When a child is born however, any injuries or attempts at harm can be considered criminal because it has breathed, it can make sounds, it can somewhat think."

However, I have already proved it his human, and living. Though it depends on the mother, doing any damage to it would be the same as you were to do to a 3 year old boy because they are both living, and human.

"Most People go through birth control because they can't support a child. This is shows wisdom and initiative towards caring as a mother. If she willy nilly has children, or is denied an abortion because it is illegal, she will not be ready financially, therefore the baby will not be cared for properly, showing how inconsiderate pro-lifers are of the child."

Once again, this debate is about morality, not legality. When a mother goes on birth-control, such is fair. But just because it doesn't work doesn't mean you should kill an innocent human for it. That is immoral, meaning unjust, or wrong.

"This is actually, for the same reasons I stated above, why woman should abort. They are acknowledging they could not support a family and they are taking the initiative by removing the fetus, not a human being."

I have already proved a fetus is human. In fact, in your later arguments you even admitted it is human. So anyway, if she can't support it why kill it? This is wrong. Put it up for adopting if you can't care for it. It is immoral to kill it, because it is innocent. If you cannot care for it, it is better to give it to a family that can rather than kill it.

"You have no idea to the thoughts of a mother going through an trauma like an unexpected pregnancy, unless of course you have experienced one, then I would be clueless as to why you would take the chances of raising an unexpected child."

How does this counter my argument? Since it didn't, I consider it an argument dropped. Sure, I have no experiance, considering I am a man. But even if a mother doesn't want to be pregnant, it doesn't mean she should kill an innocent human. Imagine if your mother no longer wanted you, so instead she just straight up killed you. Is this fair and moral? Absolutely not. The exact same thing applies to abortion. The mother does not want the baby, so she straight up kills it. This is immoral, especially since the baby is innocent thus far.

"Define perfect health. And another thing. Pre-natal scanning determines the look of said fetus, it cannot diversify birth or mental defects, therefore making this point completely invalid."

Perfect health was an exageration, I meant at least average health. And my arguments are correct, it is possible to estimate the defects a child may recieve, however only in possibility. They are incapable of proving 100% that the baby will have a defect. Nevertheless, if the baby does have a defect, it does not allow you to kill it just because it doesn't have average health. This is immoral.

"This has to be the most ludicrous thing I've read in an abortion debate. I'm appalled you said "Just because you got raped does not mean you can kill the child". How seriously do you think about rape? Do think a woman should have a child from a man she has no connection to? Every time she looks at the child, she will be reminded the wrongs done to her, trauma like that's drives good people to suicide. Her family would want the baby aborted, they want a grandchild who's father they know. You insinuate that when a woman aborts a child conceived through rape, its greedy. I find that absolutely appalling. Reconsider what you said here, I'm lost for words."

You find it appauling, but it is realistic. You need to face the facts. If a woman get's raped, she must care for the baby. It is unfair to kill it. Just because she will experiance trauma, doesn't mean you can just go on out and kill a child! Furthermore, trauma is only temporary, regardless if there is a totem to help the person remember the occurance. So if you get raped, and you abort a baby, you are killing a child so you no longer feel pain that is only temporary. This is highly immoral. You say going against this is appauling, however as I have just explained, being in favour of it is much more appauling.

Abortion due to rape = Killing an innocent being to end a temporary problem.

"I don't think people with mental disorders kill for pleasure, especially something inside of them that has no physical appearance to yourself. Of course, there are some mental disorders that cause that, but even then I'm sure they would be noticeable."

Once again, this doesn't prove anything, nor counters my argument, thus another argument dropped.

  • It was inccorect for you not to make a platform. In this debate, you need to prove that abortion is moral. All you did was counter my points, and dropped half of them. Furthermore, countering them had not relation whatsoever to abortion being moral. I have countered your counter arguments, and proved abortion is immoral. You on the other hand proved nothing thus far. You have no explantion to which why aboriton is moral in most cases. I proved in most cases, maybe even all cases abortion is wrong.

I have no need to create any further argument. My opponent dropped most of my cases, and they didn't create any of their own. Furtermore, they didn't prove abortion is moral. Also, I countered their counter arguments, and renedered them all false.
edibleshrapnel

Con

Goody, I get to wake up in the morning to argue about abortion! Apologies in advance if I sound sour. Noting that neither of of have any new points, I will rebut your rebuttals about my rebuttals.

I said, "Making abortion illegal is the same as dictating ones future, because that's exactly what happens with an unplanned child".

You rebutted, "This debate is about wether or not abortion is immoral, not if it should be legal or not"
Isn't influencing lives immoral? You should only be responsible for your own, changing another's life, in the case of abortion for the worse, is highly immoral.

I said some stuff about the fetus not being self conscious, and you COMPLETELY disregarded me for it. The fetus does not exist on the worldy realm yet, until it is out of the womb, it has not yet lived. A fetus is a fetus. Here is the Webster diction definition of a Human being : "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished form other animals by superior in mental development, power of articulate speech, and an upright stance". Lets compare a human fetus to that of the definition of "Human being". Does a fetus have superior mental development to that of an adult? Or a dog? I would think not. Can a fetus recite Shakespeares "Macbeth" while holding the script in its hands? I would think not. Can a fetus stand up? I certainly hope not, that would cause negative development in the womb to the mother, as well as said fetus.

I say how many mothers go through birth control because they acknowledge they couldn't support a child, and are taking the wise initiative to dispose of the fertilized egg or fetus, depending on month of pregnancy.Once again, you state this argument as a case of legality, not morality. Seriously? I would say its immoral to take miscare of a child, not misfeed a child, to miseducate a child mentally, socially, and physically. Denying the child to food, motherly love, and school, is the very immoral, and this doesn't happen if the mother aborts in the womb, both the child and mother are spared hardships. Morality, because the child and mother are receiving proper care.

You proven jack squat about the Fetus being a self-conscious human being. Do you remember being in your mothers womb? When did you really have your first memory? Stop using fetus and innocent in the same sentence, you've given no scientific proof that a fetus is self-conscious.

Pre-natal scanning cannot detect mental health defects! Its not like an MRI, or a CAT scan, all you can see is the child. And how many mothers have killed their children because of health defects? If their normal, they'll be loving and caring regardless.

Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape! Why must a woman care for a rape-conceived baby? That doesn't seem very logical, wise, or moral. Why is it unfair to kill it? She didn't want to have the baby, she didn't give consent to the person responsible, so WHY IN LORD BUDDHA'S MUST SHE HAVE A CHILD? Have you considered she doesn't want children? Trauma can be permanent, one time my dad got a clown for my birthday, and guess what? I'm still afraid of clowns. Rape pain? What a dreadful euphemism. Neither of us have been raped, so I doubt either of us know the trauma and pain suffered through it. Once again, you've proven me nil that the fetus is self-conscious.

Before Start ranting again, I've noticed that your platform for EVERY argument and rebuttal of yours, is that the Fetus, or a "Human being" in your words, is innocent. How? It doesn't mentally exist yet. Its just a bunch of cells. I ask you again, what scientific evidence proves that fetus's and are self-conscious?

Conclusion? Sometimes abortion is immoral, but most times it isn't. That rape thing was completely ludicrous, by the way. And don't say that I didn't prove abortion is moral, because you didn't prove that it is Immoral. You also have no opinion towards your own statements, one cannot legitimately criticize their own work with accuracy. That's up to the public.
Debate Round No. 3
Teemo

Pro

Before even continuing this debate, I would like to points out that my opponent already broke 3 rules. In the first round, it clearly stated the rules. Since my opponent wasn't exactly polite I don't believe I will forgive them for the rules they broke. If it was just 1 rule broken, perhaps I would of, but since it was 3, and they weren't exactly polite, I cannot. Here are the rules they broke, and proof of them breaking it.

Rule 5: No making your own definition (only applies to opponent)

". Here is the Webster diction definition of a Human being : "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished form other animals by superior in mental development, power of articulate speech, and an upright stance".

Rule 6: No profanity.

"Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape!"

Rule 7: No personal attacks

"Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape! "


As you can see, my opponent broke not only 1, but 3 rules. I urge that voters remember the deduction agreed upon when you vote. Please remember the 7 point deduction.
=====================================================================================

Now that that's taken care of, I will now continue with rebuttals.

"Isn't influencing lives immoral? You should only be responsible for your own, changing another's life, in the case of abortion for the worse, is highly immoral."

Influencing lives for the better is moral, especially if it is to save another innocent being. Now, since you argued I that a fetus can't be innocent, I will now prove you wrong. I am permmited to create definitions, however you aren't, as established in the rules.

Innocent: "free from moral wrong; without sin; pure" [1]

So someone innocent is someone that did no wrong. This child isn't even born yet, and thus incapable of wrong doing.

Anyway, though that was off-topic, it will come back later in my refutations. So changing another's life is immoral in the case of abortion. This is both wrong and irrelevant. It is moral to stop someone from doing something immoral. Killing an innocent being- regardless if it is concious or not is immoral. So if someone were to force someone else not to kill a being, it is moral. Furthermore, even if such were true, it is irrelvant. If stoping something was immoral, that doesn't mean the thing they are stopping is moral.

"I said some stuff about the fetus not being self conscious, and you COMPLETELY disregarded me for it. The fetus does not exist on the worldy realm yet, until it is out of the womb, it has not yet lived. A fetus is a fetus. Here is the Webster diction definition of a Human being : "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished form other animals by superior in mental development, power of articulate speech, and an upright stance". Lets compare a human fetus to that of the definition of "Human being". Does a fetus have superior mental development to that of an adult? Or a dog? I would think not. Can a fetus recite Shakespeares "Macbeth" while holding the script in its hands? I would think not. Can a fetus stand up? I certainly hope not, that would cause negative development in the womb to the mother, as well as said fetus."

Regardless if a fetus is conscious or not, it is immoral to kill it since it is innocent. Since it is a fetus, it is expected to live, expected to have a conscious. So killing it is just killing it in it's unconscious form, though it is innocent. Does a fetus have superior mental development than an adult? Of course not, but it is expected to. Furthermore, does a new born baby have that either? Can a newborn baby stand? No! Can a fetus recite macbeth while holding it in his hands? No! Neither can a fully grown man that can't read! Just because it can't do average human activities does not make him unhuman. If a fetus isn't human, what species is it?

s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

"I say how many mothers go through birth control because they acknowledge they couldn't support a child, and are taking the wise initiative to dispose of the fertilized egg or fetus, depending on month of pregnancy.Once again, you state this argument as a case of legality, not morality. Seriously? I would say its immoral to take miscare of a child, not misfeed a child, to miseducate a child mentally, socially, and physically. Denying the child to food, motherly love, and school, is the very immoral, and this doesn't happen if the mother aborts in the womb, both the child and mother are spared hardships. Morality, because the child and mother are receiving proper care."

This completly ignores the argument you are refuting. I said if they can't care for it, put it up for adoption. It is much better that way than killing it. Killing it is immoral because it is innocent as proven already.

"You proven jack squat about the Fetus being a self-conscious human being. Do you remember being in your mothers womb? When did you really have your first memory? Stop using fetus and innocent in the same sentence, you've given no scientific proof that a fetus is self-conscious."

I am not required to prove it is self-conscious. I just need to prove it is human, as I have already done. Furthermore, I also proved that it is innocent, since it isn't possible for it to do wrong. I don't need scientific proof. I already scientifically proved it is human. You didn't scientifically prove it isn't self-conscious.

"Dude, your being a complete ***hole the way you talk about rape! Why must a woman care for a rape-conceived baby? That doesn't seem very logical, wise, or moral. Why is it unfair to kill it? She didn't want to have the baby, she didn't give consent to the person responsible, so WHY IN LORD BUDDHA'S MUST SHE HAVE A CHILD? Have you considered she doesn't want children? Trauma can be permanent, one time my dad got a clown for my birthday, and guess what? I'm still afraid of clowns. Rape pain? What a dreadful euphemism. Neither of us have been raped, so I doubt either of us know the trauma and pain suffered through it. Once again, you've proven me nil that the fetus is self-conscious."

You still ignore the point. The point is that even if she got raped, that doesn't mean she should kill a baby. This is immoral. She killed a child to end her trauma. She chose her own selfish needs over life, innocent life. Furthermore, trauma weakens regardless if it dissapeares or not. Once, again, I have no need to prove a fetus is self-conscious.

"Before Start ranting again, I've noticed that your platform for EVERY argument and rebuttal of yours, is that the Fetus, or a "Human being" in your words, is innocent. How? It doesn't mentally exist yet. Its just a bunch of cells. I ask you again, what scientific evidence proves that fetus's and are self-conscious?"

It doesn't need to mentally exist to be innocent, as I have proven. There is no need for me to prove it is conscious, because it doesn't remove the fact that it is human, and innocent. I ask you again, what scientific proof do you have that it isn't self-conscious? Regardless if you do or don't it is irrelevant.

"Conclusion? Sometimes abortion is immoral, but most times it isn't. That rape thing was completely ludicrous, by the way. And don't say that I didn't prove abortion is moral, because you didn't prove that it is Immoral. You also have no opinion towards your own statements, one cannot legitimately criticize their own work with accuracy. That's up to the public."

I have proved that a fetus is human. Though possibly not conscious, it is still human. Since it didn't cause any harm, it is innocent. So killing it, an innocent child is immoral, since it is innocent. You have no platform whatsoever, you only rebutted my arguments. With your refutations, you were unable to prove that abortion is moral in most cases. I proved in almost all cases it is immoral. I proved my points, you don't have any in the first place.
======================================================================================
In conclusion, I proved a fetus is human, and innocent. Whether or not it is self-conscious, it doesn't effect this fact. My opponent made no argument, or valid refutation to prove that in most cases abortion is moral. Furthermore, he insulted me, my opinions, and broke 3 rules in 1 round.

Please voters remember the 7 point deduction.

Source:
1.http://dictionary.reference.com...;
edibleshrapnel

Con

Well, I suppose I will begin by rebutting my opponents rebuts about my rebuts about my opponents rebuts.



I did not make that definition up, that was quoted from the Websters dictionary, as I stated in the paragraph you quoted. That's quite lazy on your part.

No profanity? I'm defending women who have been raped, and your saying that they should have the baby because its "moral". Definition of profanity from Websters dictionary : Blasphemous or obscene language". So, when I said your behaviour was ***hole like, your behaviour, was in fact, ***hole like. Your showing no regard for the woman who have been raped. Thats very obscene, so should we be docking you points?

You haven't defined "Immoral" yet. I asked you like 3 rounds ago.

"I am permitted to create definitions, however you aren't, as established in the rules". How ignorant of me to have missed that piece of hypo criticism. Shame of me. Woe are my ways.

Said child, as an individual human being, as I have previously stated, does not exist, therefore arguments over morality do not apply to said fetus. You can stop saying that removing a fetus is immoral, I think I have it plastered in my head, you've said it an unbearable amount of times, anyways. Said Fetus is not alive, therefore it can't be killed, therefore it is not immoral to remove a fetus.

"Regardless if a fetus is conscious or not, it is immoral to kill it since it is innocent".

Not if it isn't alive.

"I said if they can't care for it, put it up for adoption"

Seriously? Why should a woman go through the pain and liabilities of pregnancy, if their end result is......nothing? Your missing work when your pregnant, and depending on your job, you either or either not get paid welfare, so how will you support yourself? Mooching off family and friends? I think that is immoral, is it not?

"Killing it is immoral because it is innocent as proven already".

You've proven nothing.

"I am not required to prove it is self conscious. I just need to prove it is human, as I have already done".

As I have previously stated, you've proven nothing. A "Human" is a member of the species "homo-sapiens. A fetus is just some cells. Since it's not really anything at that stage, it's not human.

"You still ignore the point. The point is that even if she got raped, that doesn't mean she should kill a baby. This is immoral. She killed a child to end her trauma. She chose her own selfish needs over life, innocent life. Furthermore, trauma weakens regardless if it disappears or not. Once, again, I have no need to prove a fetus is self-conscious".

*facepalm*; You just quoted everything you said about rape from the last round. Therefore, I am not required to rebut something I've already rebutted.

"I have proved that a fetus is human".

That's your opinion, and I don't care about your opinion. I care about your points, platform, and rebuttals. your points are all the same, as well as your platform, as well as your rebuttal. Your points somehow end up at the conclusion that everything about abortion is immoral, your platform is that the fetus is human and it is innocent, and your rebuttals consist of you saying that you've "Proven" your points, my points are irrelevant, and you leave it at that.

"My opponent made no argument, or valid refutation to prove that in most cases abortion is moral".

See all this black text? Those are called words! And those words consist of argument! I've given no valid refutation? That's your opinion, and in your opinion my rebuttals are completely irrelevant, my points are immoral, and fetus are alive. It must be awesome having an opinion that's obviously correct, I wish I was you.

"Furthermore, he insulted me, my opinions, and broke 3 rules in 1 round".

I insulted your notion about rape. I'm sure you're a fine gentleman in real life. I haven't insulted your opinions, just your theory on fetus life. And I yes, I broke 2 rules, But you I think you broke some rules yourself!

Rule 6: No profanity

You saying all rape victims are selfish and greedy is very obscene and blasphemous. Look above for the Webster's dictionary definition of profanity.

Rule 7: No personal attacks

You saying all rape victims are selfish and greedy is very personal.



PLease voter's remember the 7 point deduction.











Debate Round No. 4
Teemo

Pro

I didn't break any rules. Profanity is swearing. You have done so, not just saying bad things. If I said you are too happy in a bad way, does that make the word "happy" profanity? Of course not. You litterally called me a donkey's behind which is profanity. Plus, a personal attack is insulting a specific person. I just explained why aborting is selfish, without specifically targeting someone. You made up that definition. I checked the webster one and it is completly different.

I proved a fetus is living, in round 2. You even agreed with me. "I will begin my rebuttal, you state that a fetus is a living organism. True." So your arguments saying a fetus isn't alive are false.

And all my arguments have proof and sources. None of yours do. Because of such, all of your points can be false, since they aren't backed up by proof.

I proved that in most cases it is immoral. Not once did you prove it is moral, since you didn't have an argument.

You broke 3 rules, and thus the deduction will be made. I did not break any. So the deduction only applies to you.

Please remember that you may no longer make an argument because you had more rounds to debate if you do so. You agreed to not debate in round 5 when you accepted the debate, it is rule 1. If you break this rule, your argument will not be counted, and the 7 point deduction will be made again.

Please stop insulting people when you debate. It is rude. I will report you if such consist.

Thanks for the debate.
edibleshrapnel

Con

Ok, the Webster's definition of profanity, as I've stated 3 times, is : "blasphemous or obscene language". Making rude and obscene comments about rape victims is profanity! And when you criticize rape victims, that's very personal. And I did not make it up, my Webster's dictionary, from 2008, states thee exact same, and don't argue it's outdated, I doubt much of the English language has changed in 6 years.

Opinions can be changed, and that's exactly what I did. That's round 2, and I revised my platform in round 3. YOUR arguments on the fetus living is false, after all, were both making statements, right?I've looked at all arguments, and your only source for for ANYTHING was in round 2 when you were quoting from some college science article from 1999, and WebMd, the page doesn't display anything on that one, so you, have no sources.

As I've stated, You've proved nothing, why do you keep saying that? If you say it enough I'll magically believe?

I've broken 1 rule, the profanity one, but you've broken 2! Criticizing and targetting rape victims is very obscene! And my definition was from Webster's, I'm not bull crapping you! Your very hypocritical, man.

Ok, I won't make any argument about abortion. You said so.

You were insulting rape victims, I was insulting your insults. Let me ask, who REALLY is in the wrong here? Should I report you?
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 2 years ago
edibleshrapnel
Cool cool, like they say in community.
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
This is my debate, therefore I can comment all I want. You remind of an old friend of mine. I believe he was an intense atheist. He reported me because I told him his debates were unfair. After such, for some reason everyone went along with me, and started to go willy nilly comment on his debates. Ahh.. good times.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 2 years ago
edibleshrapnel
Dude, I'm legitimately facepalming right now. YOU used profanity, YOU made VERY personal attacks to rape victims, and YOU were the one who started complaining in the comments section! And what's with that last one? You said MUCH more then "thanks for the debate" in your last round!

I ask that you stop making wild accusations, or I will report you for harassment. And that private message, that was taking it to far. You're winning this debate, but yet you continue to argue about it. STOP NOW. I asked you already to stop commenting, so please, STOP.
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
Rules broken:

No profanity
No personal attack
No complaining in the comment section
In the last round, you may write no more than "thanks for the debate".
Posted by edibleshrapnel 2 years ago
edibleshrapnel
What? I've broken more rules? Nevermind, have fun being ignorant, I refuse to address you any longer.
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
4 rules broken.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 2 years ago
edibleshrapnel
Well, your allowed to create your own definitions, so who am I to argue with you?
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
Yes it does.
Posted by edibleshrapnel 2 years ago
edibleshrapnel
Yeeeeeah, that's not what personal means......
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
Teemo
No personal attacks. Saying abortion due to rape is selfish is not a personal attack. Personal meaning specifically offending your opponent. I did not break any rules whatsoever.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
TeemoedibleshrapnelTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Rule 6+7 were violated by Con and this constitutes a 7-0 vote, however Pro falsly accused Con of breaking rule 5 while in truth Con didn't make his own definition but instead listed one from a source so conduct to con.