The Instigator
XiaoFei98
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
kkjnay
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points

Abortion is murder and wrong

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,367 times Debate No: 18665
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (10)

 

XiaoFei98

Con

Abortion is wrong for so many reasons. Firstly, it is killing an innocent child. When many women kill their child, their kid has a beating heartbeat by then and whatever has a heartbeat is living. Also, people think it's safe. Think again. Anyone can do some research and see the amount of things that can go wrong after an abortion. Another thing is that it's completely disobeying God. Abortion is thus, wrong. This country outlaws murder, but yet they make some exceptions. Abortion is murder and should be outlawed.
kkjnay

Pro

First, I would like to point out that the debate is "Abortion is murder and wrong". You chose Con, which would mean you disagree with this. I can see that is clearly not the case. To clarify, I will be arguing that abortion is not murder and wrong.

I will start with a rebuttal of my opponent(con)'s argument. This argument is riddled with logical fallacies. I will start with, "Firstly, it is killing an innocent child. When many women kill their child, their kid has a beating heartbeat by then and whatever has a heartbeat is living" Con's argument presented was: Child=kid, Kid=beating heart, heartbeat=living.
In presenting this, you have actually weakened your argument. This is a fallacy known as "Denying the antecedent".
Child=kid=heartbeat=living, Killing a living thing is wrong. This assumes that only a human has a heartbeat. Not only humans have a heartbeat. For example a cow, chicken, or pig all have hearbeats as well. Therefore(by your argument), it is wrong to kill cows, chickens, pigs, any animal with a heartbeat, even though you use these and other living animal's(that have a heartbeat) products daily.

Secondly, "Also, people think it's safe. Think again. Anyone can do some research and see the amount of things that can go wrong after an abortion."
This is merely a hypothesis. Yes it is possible that something could go wrong. This does not make it unsafe. There is a risk of complication in any medical procedure.
Legal abortion is a safe procedure. Infection rates are less than one percent, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 deaths occurs from first-trimester abortions. Abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term. Medical and surgical abortions are both safe and effective when performed by trained practitioners.

My final rebuttal of Con's argument, "Another thing is that it's completely disobeying God. Abortion is thus, wrong."
You never stated how exactly it is disobeying god. You also are assuming that this argument is directed towards someone that actually believes in your god. Foremost, you are assuming that god is real. This is a fallacy, known as "begging the question" or circular reasoning. You have no proof that abortion is disobeying god. There is no proof that god is real.

I have now rebutted and disproved every single argument of Con. Since Con bears the burden of proof, I don't actually need to have any arguments as of currently. However, I will do so anyway.

"This country outlaws murder", I will assume you mean the United States. I will desregard the tone, referring to abortion as murder;you can refer to my rebuttals, to see the appropriate response. The U.S. also has a Bill of Rights. I will start by referring to the first ammendment right, Freedom of Religion. This right guarantees every U.S. citizen a freedom of and from religion. "The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Basically what this is saying is, the government can make no law that incorporates religion. "Another thing is that it's completely disobeying God. Abortion is thus, wrong." Since that seems to be the only argument you have(which was disproved in my rebuttal), all that you have backing this up, is your religious views. There is a separation of church and state, as I have pointed out above. Religion has no place in the establishment of laws, and would actually violate the bill of rights, if there were to be a law banning abortion solely based on the basis that "abortion is disobeying god, thus is wrong".

Abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth. Abortion can and is used in cases of rape, incest, or in cases where having the baby will present significant complications or harm to the mother. The fetus(whether it has its own heartbeat or not) is not capable of mantaining life, or a stable heartbeat without the mother. It should not be viewed as a human, as it is not. It is, however, a human fetus. Yes, it is a potential human child, just as a man's semen and a woman's eggs are a potential human child.

I am not at all invalidating your opinion, but, it is not fair to invalidate a woman's right to choose. Especially when you have never been under the same circumstances. i.e.(rape, incest, or childbirth). Therefore, essentially it is illogical for a woman who has never beared a child, or a man, to decide for this woman. (do not view this as sexist, or feminist, I am an unbiased male)Again, I am NOT saying their opinion is invalid because of this, but it is just that an OPINION. A way to put this, is the golden rule, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
ex. If you were raped, would you want the government to force you to keep the baby? The government should not, and does not have control of womens' bodies. The government cannot make any sexual act illegal(obviously with the consent of both, and no harm to the public, or bodily harm to either), and thus, they cannot control the result of it, either.

I have now disproved every argument of Con. As I had said earlier, Con does bear the burden of proof, so after my rebuttal, I technically had already won. I further advanced to make 3 simple arguments, (freedom of religion, fetus is NOT a person, the golden rule).
As of now, I see no reason not to vote Pro(me), which is saying abortion is not murder and wrong.
I look forward to the rest of the debate, thought I think it's pretty clear, I have summarized all of it in round 1. Disproved the various weak, and logal fallacy arguments, and then made a counter argument.
Vote PRO
Debate Round No. 1
XiaoFei98

Con

You started with my first argument that whatever has a heartbeat is living. This is true. True, animals have heartbeats and I find it terrible to kill them, but it still has a heartbeat. When you have an abortion it cuts off the heartbeat thus, killing your own child. Even in the situations of rape the man should be the one to blame. The child, on the other hand is simply a consequence of the man's actions. This child is innocent and had no part in their mother's rape. No baby is unwanted. Steve Jobs was adopted and obviously was a wanted kid by a family because he was adopted into the family. If his mother decided to abort instead of adopt, where would Macintosh be today? No where. I probably wouldn't even exist and it's one of the most used computers.

You then stated my next point. Abortion is not safe. It's not "meerly a hypothesis." Many studies have proved that many women after aborting their child have had a higher chance at cervical, ovarian, and liver cancer along with miscarriages. Also, many women after aborting have tried committing suicide and have had physiological complications like: post traumatic stress disorder, increased smoking, use of alcohol, and drugs. It also shows that the mother starts to neglect or abuse their child due to depression and other mental issues and the mother is more prone to an unstable marriage. They become emotional unstable. So with all these medical issues, how can you say that abortion is safe? Abortion could, perhaps, not only be fatal to the child, but the mother as well.

Then, you said that your "final rebuttal" was that there is no proof that there is a god and thus, you are not disobeying anyone. This would be shown in a different argument that we can make later, but I believe there is a God. Read the Bible. And the things you are doing to disobey him are that you are murdering and you are destroying the plan God already had made for the child that you just killed.

In "the Declaration of Independence...states that "[All] men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Allowing abortion directly contradicts the Founding Fathers' intentions for an inalienable right to life in this country."

You say that "abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth." It terminates a life. No, the fetus cannot maintain life on it's no, but that's no reason to kill it. It has a heartbeat and is a living being. Born babies cannot live without their parents either so does that mean if one day on a whim, we leave them to die just because you don't feeling like being a mom anymore? That's wrong. It's the mother's choice to have sex (unless it's rape) and she has the choice to take some birth control which works 99% of the time. The mother shouldn't be able to kill her child for her irresponsibility.

Check out these three sites:
http://abortion.procon.org...- look under both sections
http://afterabortion.org...
http://afterabortion.org...
kkjnay

Pro

Why does the woman bear all of the responsibility? The rapist(man) should bear all of the burden, obviously he did not intend to have a child with this woman he raped. If the woman does not want the child, she will have an abortion. This fetus is the result of the rape.
I will point out your first paragraph is a very flawed logic. You are saying that it would be wrong to stop a rape if you saw one, because you are killing the potential baby. Further this implies that there is nothing wrong with men raping women, as they are just trying to create babies, and in not doing so, they would be killing babies.

I will state again, abortion is a safe procedure. Those 'studies' were propaganda used by anti-abortion groups. To say that an abortion would put you at a higher risk for cancer is false. An abortion can cause some of these complications. "many women" do not experience them. That was phrased as if the majority experience depression or suicidal thoughts. The probability is very rare. In fact, these results from pregnancy are much more prevalent, by about 13 times as much. The risk of death in abortion is about 1 in 160,000, compared to the risk of death in childbirth which is 13.3 in 100,000.
" It also shows that the mother starts to neglect or abuse their child due to depression and other mental issues "
This is obviously false. There are no studies on this. I'm not sure what this is actually saying. Is it saying that every women than has an abortion beats their child? Anyway, I'll just disregard that.

"Then, you said that your "final rebuttal" was that there is no proof that there is a god and thus, you are not disobeying anyone. This would be shown in a different argument that we can make later, but I believe there is a God. Read the Bible. And the things you are doing to disobey him are that you are murdering and you are destroying the plan God already had made for the child that you just killed. "

There is no proof that your god exists. Don't expect your personal religious beliefs to have any merit in a factual debate. Again, you are using circular reasoning, and argument from authority. Although, it is ultimately irrelevant.

First of all, please do not falsely quote the Declaration of Independence, " Allowing abortion directly contradicts the Founding Fathers' intentions for an inalienable right to life in this country." is mentioned nowhere in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, "In "the Declaration of Independence...states that "[All] men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This obviously does not apply to a fetus, which does not exist as a person. It has not been 'created' yet. Also, I would love to see a fetus pursue happiness.

The purpose of an abortion is not to kill the fetus. The purpose is to remove the fetus from the woman's body. Having said that, this inevitably leads to death, as the fetus cannot survive outside of the woman's body;thus it was a part of her body.
"Born babies" or simply 'babies' are people, it obviously wouldn't be right to kill a person. Having gave birth to the child and keeping it however;the mother is actually assuming responsibility for the child, as opposed to an abortion.

Con did not present any new arguments, nor did Con disprove my arguments or my rebuttals. Con continues to use circular reasoning as well as logical fallacies. Con's staple arguments seem to be opinion based. I will assume the rest of the debate will continue as this.
Vote PRO

Sources------
http://www.prochoice.org...
http://www.prochoice.org...
http://family.jrank.org...
Debate Round No. 2
XiaoFei98

Con

You say that I'm approving rape. This is not true. I do not believe in nor do I want it to happen. What I'm saying is once you are raped, the sperm has been sent. Fertilization may have begun to take place. If rape was stopped, this wouldn't be a problem. It would've been better without the rape so the mother would not have to put into his type of situation. Killing the wrong person isn't or shouldn't be a solution though. No I haven't proved anything and neither have you. It's hard convincing some of their wrong thoughts. You don't believe in God.. That's a completely different issue. Anyways, abortion should not be a solution of rape Then, you say that all of the data of mental and physical damage are not true. I stated very worthy sites and am wondering if you checked them out. Don't put words in my mouth either. Debate fairly. I would like you to go onto Google images and look up aborted children. There you can see their head, eyes,feet, and hands. It's very saddening that people would pay at least $1000 to get rid of a kid that could go to a right home where they could be loved. Steve Jobs could have been killed but his parents gave him a chance and look where he went with it.
kkjnay

Pro

Please understand that this is a debate. These are not personal attacks. You have completely ignored the basis of the debate and are now resorting to providing your personal opinion. From skimming this, I see that, you are in fact, still using logical fallacies. This entire paragraph is an example of 'Appeal to emotion'.
Now that you have essentially forfeited round 3, I'll explain.

I never said that you are approving rape. I said that your logic could equate to approving rape.(Which it still does)

I never dismissed your information as viable. I did however, prove that it is exaggerated. Abortion is still safer than childbirth.

"You don't believe in God.. That's a completely different issue"
This is completely off topic, but you feel the need to keep bringing this up. I am simply saying that the basis of your argument cannot be "abortion is bad, because god says it is". That is not a logical argument.

"No I haven't proved anything and neither have you"
Now, I will tell you what I have proved and disproved.
I have proven that abortion of a human fetus is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus is not a "being". It does not exist as a human yet. It is a developing human embryo. Abortions actually can be performed while the fetus is still in the embryonic stage. Abortion is not murder anymore than masturbation is.
To consider abortion murder we have to define murder as: an act that would directly impede the result of a woman being impregnated and giving birth.
So now we have to think of everything as 'potential humans'. Rape is forced sex, if vaginal would result in pregnancy.(assuming the woman is fertile) So, if you were to stop a rape, you would be a murderer. We can also extend this to, if a time becomes available that you could create a human, not doing so would be impeding pregnancy;thus it is murder. Therefore, if you do not rape a woman, you are a murderer.
As I had pointed out, this obviously does not make sense. That is why you should question the logic.

I have proven that abortion is a safe medical procedure, and in comparison with childbirth, is safer. I have proven that the U.S. Bill of Rights protects womens' rights to abortion. I have proven that a human fetus does not equal a human being.

I have proven that Con has no valid arguments, or counterarguments. In regards to one argument, Con actually said "there is proof that god exists, I believe god exists. Read the bible", as an attempt to enforce his personal religious views and beliefs on me.

I have now won this debate, but the next two rounds will be interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
XiaoFei98

Con

I would listen to this whole thing if I were you. The beginning through the end. It may be long, but it is very inspirational. You may not see the connection in the beginning, but in the end you will. Also, I hope that you are against what Hitler did to the Jewish people. If you don't then I have an essay in the next round to give to you.

http://www.180movie.com...
kkjnay

Pro

Con again presents no argument in round 4, again using 'Appeal to emotion'.
Since Con has made no arguments nor rebuttals the last two rounds, I can only conclude that I have won this debate. I will now restate my arguments.
The abortion of a human fetus is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus is not a human being, it does not yet exist as a human. A fetus is a human embryo.

Abortion is a safe medical procedure, with the rare death of the woman resulting in 1 in 160,000. This compared with death in childbirth which is 13.3 in 100,000.

The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees that religious beliefs will play no role in abortion.

"the Declaration of Independence...states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Con argued that this applies to a fetus, which is not yet a human being, nor has it been created. However, in this same quote, the Declaration of Independence guarantees Liberty. Obviously included in liberty is Self-ownership, which is the right of the person to be the exclusive controller of his or her body and life. Therefore, women have the right to abortion.

"Also, I hope that you are against what Hitler did to the Jewish people. If you don't then I have an essay in the next round to give to you."
Of course I didn't like the holocaust. I'm not sure how this is relevant, or what is intended by this. I would ask that you remember this is a debate about abortion.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
XiaoFei98

Con

You are restating what you have already said in almost, if not every, round. You are not proving anything new. At least I'm bringing something new to the table. I thought that the video would convict you, but it obviously did not. I would like to ask what you would say to questions. By the way in round 2 and 3 I mentioned Steve Jobs. I asked a question to go along with it. I would like you to answer it. Also, I asked if the mother on a whim should leave her child just because she uses her body irresponsibly. An infant depends on the mother for their health and nourishment. Should we just abandon it because we feel like it? Because we don't want to take responsibility? Do you see where I'm going? I would love it if you answered all these questions with, of course, your opinions. The essay I don't have access to so unfortunately you won't be able to read it. I hope this subject you have been pondering about.
kkjnay

Pro

VOTERS: REMEMBER, I AM PRO, which is falsely labeled, as I am arguing that abortion is not 'murder and wrong'.

I have restated my arguments in the last two rounds, because for the last two rounds you did not refute, or even attempt to refute my arguments. I do not have to prove anything new, since you have not refuted or disproved my arguments. I have already won, if I have disproven that abortion is murder(I have), I have disproved every single argument you presented. The last three rounds you have completely ignored the basis of this debate. Every one of your arguments in the last three rounds, including this one, has been fallacious 'Appeal to emotion'.

"Also, I asked if the mother on a whim should leave her child just because she uses her body irresponsibly"
Are you referring to rape? I'm not sure. I actually did answer your question about if a mother should leave her child, I'll answer it again. "Born babies" or simply 'babies' are people, it obviously wouldn't be right to kill a person. Having given birth to the child and keeping it however;the mother is actually assuming responsibility for the child, as opposed to an abortion.

I dismissed your Steve Jobs question, because it is not relevant. Now that it is your only argument, I will address it.
What if Steve Jobs was aborted?
This is a logical fallacy, known as 'Appeal to authority', possibly also 'appeal to emotion'.

Con has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and has presented no arguments(that I haven't disproven) as to why abortion is murder or wrong.

"The essay I don't have access to so unfortunately you won't be able to read it."
That is unfortunate. Arguments are relevant in a debate, for future reference, it would be very beneficial to use them.

Abortion is not murder or wrong. A fetus is not a human being, it is simply a human embryo.

I would like to thank Con(arguing that abortion is murder) for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
I just want to add that in the case of rape, two wrongs do not make a right.
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Remember, Pro is actually debating that abortion is not murder. Con is arguing that it is.
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Ehhh, I disagree. If I include small topics like that it kind of weakens the argument.(In my opinion)
Thanks for linking that though, it is a valid point.
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
If you don't see what I'm getting at, here's another link:
http://www.ivf.net...
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
I was speaking to kkjnay to clarify.

If you wish to argue in comments:
IVF stands for In vitro fertilisation.
Here is a link to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a link to a very specific part of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are a LOT of them. In every clinic.
You were saying?
Posted by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
Oh. And there is no unwanted child. all children are wanted by a different family and God. That's where adoption comes in.
Posted by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
Are you meaning the person who is supposed to be pro or the real pro?
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Euch, I've finished reading the first round and pro, you could do better.

Here's something for you: Freakonomics.

In particular the part on abortion. Here's a link to a gist:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Ugh, I just finished my r2 then clicked submit and it sent me to a login screen. Sorry, if I take a little longer now, I have to retype from memory.
Posted by buzzbrina 5 years ago
buzzbrina
Oh my, this could be interesting. 0_0
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cat47 2 months ago
Cat47
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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 used the same refuted arguments or no argument at all sometimes.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a point there.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I have my own views regarding this matter but the con placed a dangerously large amount of his reasoning on religion which just doesnt fly on this website. Also i did see a few spelling errors by con so i gave pro that. the video you showed did not "convict" me either.....
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Essentially a concession.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stopped arguing
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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: Pro refuted Con's arguments, so Con just repeated those already-refuted arguments, or sometimes didn't make any argument at all.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's point were rarely valid and never convincing. Pro's case was more solid throughout.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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: It started out being competitive but Pro's arguments just got weaker and weaker to the point where in round 4, he simply posts a link to a movie and says that it is inspirational.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro(uh, Con) easily wins through various points. Invoking a religious belief does not constitute a factual argument.
Vote Placed by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
XiaoFei98kkjnayTied
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: Pro provided excellent arguments, and rebuttals