The Instigator
redsoxfreak010
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Wii_Master_Nin
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

Abortion

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 6992
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

redsoxfreak010

Con

Abortion is wrong for 3 reasons. You are killing a life. The government is not violating rights. There is faulty proof that there is no life before birth.
Contention 1
You are killing a life. My opponent will argue that a fetus is not alive. I will get to that in my 3rd contention. Killing is against the law, so why are we killing babies. What is the good of abortion? The preservation of rights? We have become too touchy on rights.
CONTENTION 2
We allow kids to sue their parents and allow people to sue fast-food for obesity. We think that just because we are american citizens we can escape the guilt of pregnancy. We have to see that we are truly chary when it comes to our rights. My opponent will argue that we need rights to survive. We have lasted 150 years without giving blacks rights.
Contention 3
There is faulty proof that there is no life before birth. The only way scientists have so called proven that fetus are not alive is by hooking an aborted baby to a machine and it didn't show vital signs. That is their only proof. Here is an analogy. If I roll a ball down the hill and someone stops it it doesn't mean that it wasn't going to stop rolling if there was no one there. Just because it doesn't shows signs of life doesn't mean it won't live later.

For these reasons I urge a con ballot. Thank you
Wii_Master_Nin

Pro

I thought I said no to accepting this? <_<

I'll start with attacking his case.

Cont 1
Who defines it as a baby? You never talk about who far along the abortion would be taking place.

Cont 2
Who is suing anyone? How is giving black their rights even relevant to this topic?

Cont 3
Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont.

My only argument is how can we have the right to force a women to have a baby that she doesn't want? It's her body so it should be her choice.
Debate Round No. 1
redsoxfreak010

Con

redsoxfreak010 forfeited this round.
Wii_Master_Nin

Pro

Since my opponent failed to post anything for a rebuttle you should vote Pro because I'm the only one with arguments to even vote on.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
redsoxfreak010

Con

redsoxfreak010 forfeited this round.
Wii_Master_Nin

Pro

Once again Con has failed to post an argument so because he isn't being acting OR refuting my points you should vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
redsoxfreak010

Con

To start my computer broke so thats why I have forfeited.

I will defend my case.
Cont 1
Who defines it as a baby? You never talk about who far along the abortion would be taking place.

Whenever an abortion takes place it is wrong. Morals are what drive humans. Morally, abortion is killing children. My opponent doesn't argue the good of an abortion. It provides guilt for the mother. In Ohio, a girl got an abortion, but the aborted fetus was still alive. AGAINST THE MOTHER'S WILL they killed the fetus. If we give women the option to have an abortion they should have the right to save them.
...............................................................................................................................
Cont 2
Who is suing anyone? How is giving black their rights even relevant to this topic?

My point is that we are allowed to do anything in protection of our rights. We don't need rights to survive. My opponent refuses to attack abortion just the flaws of my case. He doesn't talk about abortion.
...................................................................................................................................
Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont.

My point is just because we can't hear it feel it or see it doesn't mean its not alive. Horton hears a who quotes,
" A person is a person no matter how small". People believe in god even though we can't see it or feel it. Should we ban the worship of god too.
Wii_Master_Nin

Pro

To start my computer broke so thats why I have forfeited."

This is a lie, you've had plenty of time in our debate class to do this.

--------------------------------------

"Who defines it as a baby? You never talk about who far along the abortion would be taking place.

Whenever an abortion takes place it is wrong. Morals are what drive humans. Morally, abortion is killing children. My opponent doesn't argue the good of an abortion. It provides guilt for the mother. In Ohio, a girl got an abortion, but the aborted fetus was still alive. AGAINST THE MOTHER'S WILL they killed the fetus. If we give women the option to have an abortion they should have the right to save them."

Maybe to you abortion is wrong but to the women who wants to have one it isn't.

Who said it provides guilt for the mother? This is an open statement with no warrant or evidence and should be dismissed.

--------------------------------------

"Who is suing anyone? How is giving black their rights even relevant to this topic?

My point is that we are allowed to do anything in protection of our rights. We don't need rights to survive. My opponent refuses to attack abortion just the flaws of my case. He doesn't talk about abortion."

I am pro abortion. You are against it. In this debate my job IS to attack the flaws of your case...

And as to "My opponent refuses to attack abortion". Why would I attack someone I believe is right?

This whole contention is irrelevant.

--------------------------------------

"Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont.

My point is just because we can't hear it feel it or see it doesn't mean its not alive. Horton hears a who quotes,
" A person is a person no matter how small". People believe in god even though we can't see it or feel it. Should we ban the worship of god too."

You seem to be arguing my side for me...

Plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro.

--------------------------------------

My opponent has failed to post anything during rounds 2 and 3 so this should be taken into account.

--------------------------------------

Please vote Pro for the arguments I have made above.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
redsoxfreak010

Con

"Who defines it as a baby? You never talk about who far along the abortion would be taking place.

Whenever an abortion takes place it is wrong. Morals are what drive humans. Morally, abortion is killing children. My opponent doesn't argue the good of an abortion. It provides guilt for the mother. In Ohio, a girl got an abortion, but the aborted fetus was still alive. AGAINST THE MOTHER'S WILL they killed the fetus. If we give women the option to have an abortion they should have the right to save them."

Maybe to you abortion is wrong but to the women who wants to have one it isn't.

Who said it provides guilt for the mother? This is an open statement with no warrant or evidence and should be dismissed.

My opponent's argument is about giving women rights. I f the lady in Ohio wanted her child back, is that not her right. If women are allowed to kill a life they should be allowed to save a life. My opponent does not refute this.

This is my biggest voter in the round
--------------------------------------
"Who is suing anyone? How is giving black their rights even relevant to this topic?

My point is that we are allowed to do anything in protection of our rights. We don't need rights to survive. My opponent refuses to attack abortion just the flaws of my case. He doesn't talk about abortion."

I am pro abortion. You are against it. In this debate my job IS to attack the flaws of your case...

And as to "My opponent refuses to attack abortion". Why would I attack someone I believe is right?

This whole contention is irrelevant.

He is not talking about abortion. He is trying to avoid this argument. That is why he can't argue it because he does not know how to refute it. So, my argument still stands. This is why this argument goes to the con.
-------------------------------------
Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont.

My point is just because we can't hear it feel it or see it doesn't mean its not alive. Horton hears a who quotes,
" A person is a person no matter how small". People believe in god even though we can't see it or feel it. Should we ban the worship of god too."

You seem to be arguing my side for me...

Plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro.

My opponent again is trying to avoid the arguments. He doesn't talk about abortion. He says "plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro." Why should this argument win the whole round. He doesn't argue for abortion, he is arguing against the flaws of my case.
--------------------------------------
My opponent has to prove that abortion is not murder.
He hasn't.

He has to prove that abortion takes away rights.
He hasn't.

He has to prove that a fetus is not alive.
Again, he hasn't.

For these reasons I can only see a con ballot.
Wii_Master_Nin

Pro

Starting from what he said last because I feel this is the most important thing he said in his last round :

"My opponent has to prove that abortion is not murder.
He hasn't.

He has to prove that abortion takes away rights.
He hasn't.

He has to prove that a fetus is not alive.
Again, he hasn't."

You never gave me any of these burdens. The topic isn't "Is abortion right or wrong?" it's simply "Abortion". Because of this I do not have to give reasons why it is good, I just have to argue your case, which is what I've been doing.

But if you wish then I shall address each point:

"My opponent has to prove that abortion is not murder."

I in fact have done this... "Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont." I posted that in round 1. It can't be murder if it's not alive.

"He has to prove that abortion takes away rights."

How does it take away rights? I'm utterly confused. And where did this even come from? That statement has no point in this round.

"He has to prove that a fetus is not alive."

Ok, I'll give him this. I haven't proved a fetus isn't alive... Because he already did this for me in his 1st speech.
"Just because it doesn't shows signs of life doesn't mean it won't live later."

That is the very last sentence in his 3rd contention is the 1st speech.

------------------------------------------------------

""Who defines it as a baby? You never talk about who far along the abortion would be taking place.

Whenever an abortion takes place it is wrong. Morals are what drive humans. Morally, abortion is killing children. My opponent doesn't argue the good of an abortion. It provides guilt for the mother. In Ohio, a girl got an abortion, but the aborted fetus was still alive. AGAINST THE MOTHER'S WILL they killed the fetus. If we give women the option to have an abortion they should have the right to save them."

Maybe to you abortion is wrong but to the women who wants to have one it isn't.

Who said it provides guilt for the mother? This is an open statement with no warrant or evidence and should be dismissed.

My opponent's argument is about giving women rights. I f the lady in Ohio wanted her child back, is that not her right. If women are allowed to kill a life they should be allowed to save a life. My opponent does not refute this.

This is my biggest voter in the round"

Ok, that is post-abortion. I too believe that if the abortion fails a women should have the right to keep it. But as for abortion itself, I feel a woman who does not wish to have the baby should have the right to get rid of anything inside of her.

This goes to Pro.
------------------------------------------------------

""Who is suing anyone? How is giving black their rights even relevant to this topic?

My point is that we are allowed to do anything in protection of our rights. We don't need rights to survive. My opponent refuses to attack abortion just the flaws of my case. He doesn't talk about abortion."

I am pro abortion. You are against it. In this debate my job IS to attack the flaws of your case...

And as to "My opponent refuses to attack abortion". Why would I attack someone I believe is right?

This whole contention is irrelevant.

He is not talking about abortion. He is trying to avoid this argument. That is why he can't argue it because he does not know how to refute it. So, my argument still stands. This is why this argument goes to the con."

I've been refuting your arguments the whole time, even when you failed to post a round I still attacked. This goes to Pro.

------------------------------------------------------

"Ok... So it might live later. But you agree to the fact that it's not alive at the time so it's not murder which goes against your 1st cont.

My point is just because we can't hear it feel it or see it doesn't mean its not alive. Horton hears a who quotes,
" A person is a person no matter how small". People believe in god even though we can't see it or feel it. Should we ban the worship of god too."

You seem to be arguing my side for me...

Plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro.

My opponent again is trying to avoid the arguments. He doesn't talk about abortion. He says "plus you never argue the fact that it DOES go against your 1st contention so this point should go to Pro." Why should this argument win the whole round. He doesn't argue for abortion, he is arguing against the flaws of my case."

I've been arguing your case the whole time, that is all I'm supposed to do. *See my 1st section of this round*

But once again you do not argue the fact that it goes against your 1st contention so this also goes to Pro.

------------------------------------------------------

I have effectively attacked each of his arguments so this debate should go Pro.
Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------

I would also like to thank Keegan for making this debate even if he did fail to post a few times.

Thanks dude and see you Monday.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by redsoxfreak010 7 years ago
redsoxfreak010
redsoxfreak010Wii_Master_NinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Wii_Master_Nin 7 years ago
Wii_Master_Nin
redsoxfreak010Wii_Master_NinTied
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