The Instigator
scissorhands7
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
scissorhands7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,204 times Debate No: 5256
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

scissorhands7

Con

[Definitions]
For clarity I pose the following definitions.

Trimester: 3 months
Conception: meeting of the sperm and egg

[Contention]
I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest.

[Reasons]

1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart.

2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected.

3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions when surveyed in a CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007 registered voters agreed by an overwhelming majority (70%) that greater restictions need to be placed on abortion to (20%) who dont and (5%) who are undecided.
Of that 70%, 56% of voters completely agree with my opinion.

4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception. An act is being passed through congress requiring mothers who abort to know that their infant will go through pain. This is called the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. (http://www.time.com...)

I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning."

Mosquitos have hearts too. Are you intending to be consistent?

"
2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected.
"

Condoms and other birth control methods are imperfect, and the day after pill argument assumes a false premise, because by the time you know an egg has been fertilized, it's already too late. The primary use of such a pill is as a last resort in the event of a bout of unprotected sex resulting from negligience or rape. It is, as a practical matter, useless for dealing with used but failed birth control methods. Further, the existence of alternative solutions is not sufficient to establish that something should be illegal.

"3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions"

Votes are among the worst ways of deciding things, the existence of a mob that believes x is correct is not sufficient to establish that it IS correct. I'm sure if you polled Germans about Hitler back when he was in power- oh wait, that's how he got in power. :D
Also, polls conflict on the question, especially when you change the wording about.

"
4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception."

Fish feel pain too. Yet I still eat them.

The sole purpose of the law is the protection of entities which happen to have rights. Rights are the limits of what behavior is proper toward a rational entity, if you violate them toward such an entity without them first violating yours, you increase the chance of them violating yours. This is the sole basis for rights. Fetuses, however, are not such an entity- they have not yet developed rationality. Neither, I should note, have some infants- it is not certain when rationality develops, but, evidence points to it being sometime after birth. Also, even were it true that fetuses were rational, the fact remains that if they are in your womb without permission, they are violating your rights- they are trespassing on your private property. Thus, the other condition on which rights are based (reciprocity) is violated.

"
I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent"

No holds are barred. You may bring up anything at any time, and so shall I :D.
Debate Round No. 1
scissorhands7

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for taking on my challenge and would like to respectfully disagree with him on the following points refferenced by him in his previous rebuttal, and by myself in my conjecture.

1. "Mosquitos have hearts too. Are you intending to be consistent?"

-- Opponent Conceded that fetus are alive by comparing them with another live species.

Under the constitution of the United States ""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Listed as the inalienable rights given to a citizen, or person born inside the United States. By conceding that a fetus is a live human being, opponent has implicently recognized that a fetus has the right to life under the constitution.

In response with the consistency remark, the consitution does not grant mosquitos citizenship and thus not the rights under the consititution.

In addition to the current topic, I would like to add that in court cases where a pregnant woman was murdered, the killer was charged with two counts of murder one for the mother and one for the fetus. Murder is defined as the killing of another human being. Thus the court system also implicently recognizes that fetus is a live human being with the same rights as a citizen. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ��1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ��919a (Article 119a).

As you can see the United States Law agrees that a fetus is a human being and has rights which include life.

2. "Condoms and other birth control methods are imperfect, and the day after pill argument assumes a false premise, because by the time you know an egg has been fertilized, it's already too late."

The pill is over 99.8% effective when taken properly, and the male condom is over 98% effective. Combining these two methods is extremely effective. Most doctors recommend that you wait until the first day of your missed period before taking a home pregnancy test. This is usually around two weeks after conception. However, some tests are more sensitive than others and can be taken earlier. Notice how I said abortions to illegalize abortions after 3 weeks. So even for the lower than 0.2% who get pregnant, abortion is still an option provided they take a pregnancy test when they miss their period.
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk...

3. "Votes are among the worst ways of deciding things"
"Also, polls conflict on the question, especially when you change the wording about."

A. Which is why we use votes in the United States to decide all of our issues?
Public Opinion dictates Government Policy in a democracy.

[Definitions - for clarity]

Democracy - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

B. This statement is correct, however a majority of polls available on the internet taken by repudidated pollsters showed the same evidence with a +- gap of 4 percent, still effectively proving my argument.
http://www.pollingreport.com...

4. "Fish feel pain too. Yet I still eat them."

"the fact remains that if they are in your womb without permission, they are violating your rights- they are trespassing on your private property. Thus, the other condition on which rights are based (reciprocity) is violated."

"Fetuses, however, are not such an entity- they have not yet developed rationality. Neither, I should note, have some infants- it is not certain when rationality develops, but, evidence points to it being sometime after birth."

A. We do not eat unborn infants and thus fish have absolutely nothing to do in comparison to this argument.

B. Additionally, nowhere in the United States is there a death penalty for trespassing, or for violating anyone's rights other than the right to live.

C. Also nowhere in the consitution does rationality determine the right to live. If you are taking this stance then you are sentencing plenty of people on alzheimer's, dimensia, and mental health diseases to death.

I thank my opponent for taking the time to debate me, and look forward to his next rebuttal.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
Under the constitution of the United States ""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Listed as the inalienable rights given to a citizen, or person born inside the United States. By conceding that a fetus is a live human being, opponent has implicently recognized that a fetus has the right to life under the constitution."

By using this argument, my opponent has conceded that she has not fully and carefully read the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appear. It appears in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document, but a symbolic resolution.

Also, even were this the case, recognizing that fetuses are "Alive" does not constitute recognizing that they are a "live human being." I never once stated they were "human beings," and I reject that notion. Human, in the context of philosophy, means "rational animal." Fetuses are not rational.

"
In response with the consistency remark, the consitution does not grant mosquitos citizenship and thus not the rights under the consititution."

Nor does it grant fetuses citizenry. It contains references to citizens, but it does not mention anything that would grant them citizenship, except birth (the words "natural-born citizen" appear in it), or the consent of any state existing in the union prior to the year 1808, and after that, it is presumably left to Congress to decide by implication.
Note, however, that it is not of fundamental importance whether the Constitution favors either of us, the Constitition is no infallible document. What is important is what ought to be, not what is written in the Constitution.

"
In addition to the current topic, I would like to add that in court cases where a pregnant woman was murdered, the killer was charged with two counts of murder one for the mother and one for the fetus."

Courts, too, are not infallible. We are arguing whether abortion SHOULD BE illegal, not whether it is.

"
As you can see the United States Law agrees that a fetus is a human being and has rights which include life."

See above.

"

The pill is over 99.8% effective when taken properly, and the male condom is over 98% effective. Combining these two methods is extremely effective."
"Extremely effective" does not constitute "effective without exception." It is not sufficient to demonstrate that there can be NO reason why an abortion may still be needed.

"Most doctors recommend that you wait until the first day of your missed period before taking a home pregnancy test. This is usually around two weeks after conception. However, some tests are more sensitive than others and can be taken earlier. Notice how I said abortions to illegalize abortions after 3 weeks. So even for the lower than 0.2% who get pregnant, abortion is still an option provided they take a pregnancy test when they miss their period."

"Usually" is not always. Periods happen roughly a monthly basis, not a triweekly basis. Conception can theoretically occur at roughly any time of the month. This leaves a window at which it is possible that the missed period happens when it is already too late by law.

And, it assumes one is paying attention, it assumes one's period is regular, it assumes that pregnancy is the only cause for a missed period, all of which are imperfect assumptions.

And even in the event that the assumptions were perfect, this would be an argument for the economic nonnecessity of abortion, but not an argument for it's illegalization. Many things which are not strictly necessary still ought not be illegal. People use antivirus software to delete cookies, despite the fact that cookies are harmless.

"Which is why we use votes in the United States to decide all of our issues?"

This is an argument about what OUGHT to be done. The fact that we ARE democratic to some extent, is not sufficient to prove that democracy is GOOD.

"
B. This statement is correct, however a majority of polls available on the internet taken by repudidated pollsters showed the same evidence with a +- gap of 4 percent, still effectively proving my argument."

Not noticing, of course, the inherent bias of voluntary response polls, and the fact that that +- 4% is assuming ideal conditions (i.e. no sources of statistical bias whatsoever), and even then there is a 5% chance that it falls outside the +- 4% range (Statistics is more complicated than you might think).

"
A. We do not eat unborn infants and thus fish have absolutely nothing to do in comparison to this argument.
"
We kill fish. We kill fetuses. If you use a given reasoning as a grounds for killing one, and it applies to another, it is relevant to demand you be consistent in relation to the other.

"
B. Additionally, nowhere in the United States is there a death penalty for trespassing, or for violating anyone's rights other than the right to live."
This is not true. If I trespass, I will be taken to jail granted, but if I resist, I will be shot, even if I do not violate anyone's right to live. Thus, a death penalty results from trespassing. Ultimately all law depends upon the death penalty de facto, even if this is not acknowledged de jure, without it, the rest has no power.

"
C. Also nowhere in the consitution does rationality determine the right to live. "

The constitution, again, is not an infallible document.

"If you are taking this stance then you are sentencing plenty of people on alzheimer's, dimensia, and mental health diseases to death."

Alzheimer's does not remove the quality of rationality as such, it impairs memory. Dementia, too, does not remove the quality of rationality as such, though it does impair it to some extent, it simply reduces it's scope rather than eliminating it entirely, if my understanding of the matter is correct. I am, indeed, unaware of a major mental illness which causes homo sapiens to become a completely nonrational entity. If such illness exists, whosoever has it of course has no rights, but I am not under the impression that it exists.

And you have not offered an alternative ETHICAL basis for rights that supports your position, certainly not one with any logic. You have simply tossed up the constitution, not even a well understood version of it at that, and claimed that it proved your position- but you see, the debate, is about what SHOULD BE illegal. The constitution is itself a law. It cannot establish what SHOULD BE illegal, only what is. You need to dig deeper than that.
Debate Round No. 2
scissorhands7

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response to my rebuttal and below will offer my arguments to his own.

1. I apologize for my mistake of misnaming the document that contained the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." However this does not change my point that the founders of our constitution, and our government for that matter define "life" as a right to a human being.

For Clarity's sake I would like to make clear that my opponent has conceded that fetus's are alive, but contends that they are not human, and thus do not have the right to life granted by our government.

If my opponent has or would like to make the argument that the United States does not guarantee the right to life to human beings than I would gladly challenge him in a debate outside this one, so as to stay on topic.

A. Coming back to whether fetus's are human or not - sub argument

I am not arguing whether fetus's are human in the context of philosophy. Philosophy is pure hearsay and is based upon opinion and idle conjecture. I am debating whether a fetus is human in the eyes of the United States Law. Using your argument of philosophy (which uses rationality to denote humanity) would rule out people with Alzheimer's, dementia, and mental health diseases as having the rights both to live, and all other constitutional rights that we grant humans (as I have said previously) .

My legal argument:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ��1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ��919a (Article 119a).

Notice how this defines a "child in utero" as a member of the species homo sapiens.

B. Citizenship
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt.

The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general. Thus, I cannot murder an illegal immigrant from Mexico and expect to get off scot free. I will be punished because every human bears the right to life.

You stated that courts were infallible, however law is not.

I have stated court cases which strongly argue in my favor, precedence is the basis of jurisdictional rulings in the U.S.
Not only have I stated court cases, but I have stated federal laws which prove my point. My opponent has offered no proof that courts are infallible and has offered no proof that law is also infallible. He has used no facts, figures, or law to back up his arguments, only fish, mosquitoes, and philosophy.

I have used and shown the precedence which has been in favor of my conjecture.

2. I do not need to show effective without exception to show the minute odds of contracting an unwanted pregnancy, because there is a tool out there which is 100% effective and that is abstinence. I'm not advocating abstinence, but am showing and the viewers of this debate the odds of contracting a pregnancy when using adequate protection. Furthermore adoption is also 100% effective. If a person does not want to and cannot afford to become pregnant than I suggest not being sexually active, or using contraceptive. If the remote chance occurs that while using protection they become pregnant then I suggest aborting it within the 21 days. If as my opponent stated the period is missed after the 21 days then I suggest putting the child up for adoption. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone the right to deny human life. It is the woman's choice to be sexual active, and as I have said if they are raped/incest/at risk of dying then I am completely in favor of abortion.

Let me explain the female cycle for you clearly. Conception can only occur during ovulation. Ovulation occurs two weeks before a menstrual cycle begins. Conception occurs two weeks after your period begins.

So this means that you have 7 days after missed period to get an abortion. Pregnancy tests can detect pregnancy 4 days before your missed period.

Your argument on economic non necessity would apply if a fetus was not recognized as a human under united states law.

3. So you propose that public opinion does not matter at all because democracy in your own eyes is not considered "good"

No statistics is only more complicated than you think if I was judging by 1 poll or a group of polls that were done in an incoherent manner. However when national pollsters that are highly repudiated and unbiased have the same data, we get a public opinion that is accurate. And no these polls were not conducted via the Internet, they are random phone polls.

Instead of trying to negate everything from the constitution, to the concept of democracy, to the laws of the United States, to court cases, to statistical polls, I suggest you provide more sufficient information on your own viewpoint instead of using anti virus software. (by the way tracking cookies are not harmless)

4. A. You might want to check the "infallible" constitution on cruel and unusual punishment. Fish again do not compare to human beings under the constitution. You eat fish. I sincerely hope you do not eat fetuses.

B. No if you resist you will be tazed and further restrained and sent to jail for a longer period of time. Only if you make an attempt on the officers life will you be killed in self defense, and even then officers shoot to wound and disable first. And no a death penalty does not result from trespassing so your inordinate logic does not make sense. There is no "death penalty" only death in self defense if you make an attempt on the officers life, not trespassing.

Therefore this argument makes no sense that you receive a death penalty for trespassing.

C. Until it is revised or added to, it is if you live in the United States
So are you suggesting my great grandfather who talks aloud to his dead wife while I am sitting there is rational?
Or anyone that is brain dead does not deserve to live? Or that my Great Aunt who cannot even speak anymore but just mumbles incoherently in a bed deserves death?

"If such illness exists, whosoever has it of course has no rights, but I am not under the impression that it exists."
So are you stating that under the laws of the United States murdering any of the persons mentioned above or in your argument has no crime or penalty at all. I believe, that you are sincerely mistaken.

I have offered plenty of points of why abortion should be legal.
1. because the U.S. Court system has recognized the humanity of a fetus
2. you conceded they were alive
3. Because there are alternatives available such as adoption
4. Because all humans have the right to life
5. Because public opinion is in support
6. Because trespassing does not constitute a death sentence
7. Because the fetus feels pain during the abortion which under US law is cruel and unusual punishment
8. Because there are 100% effective solutions to preventing birth
9. Because when the mothers choice to have sexual intercourse is violated my argument allows abortion
10. Because when the mother's life is at stake my argument allows abortion

I welcome my opponents next rebuttal and hope he is doing well.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"However this does not change my point that the founders of our constitution, and our government for that matter define "life" as a right to a human being."

Ad authoritatem. :D

"
For Clarity's sake I would like to make clear that my opponent has conceded that fetus's are alive, but contends that they are not human, and thus do not have the right to life granted by our government."

Close. Governments are incapable of "Granting" rights, they either recognize them or they don't, but the rights exist prior to the formation of government. But yes, I hold that fetuses are living nonhumans.

"
I am not arguing whether fetus's are human in the context of philosophy. "

This is a lie. You stated, in your round one, this is your resolution:

"I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest."

You PROPOSE ILLEGALIZING. This means, you are not attempting to argue that it is illegal, but that it SHOULD be illegal. Whether something "should" be is the exclusive domain of philosophy.

"Philosophy is pure hearsay"
This is pure nonsense. Hearsay means you did not yourself experience it, but are relying on the stated experience of others. This has nothing to do with philosophy.

"and is based upon opinion and idle conjecture."

It is based upon inductive and deductive logic, starting from the facts of reality. If you hold that there are no facts to reality, you invalidate the notion that anything can be known, and therefore invalidate your resolution, because it assumes that certain facts exist and have to be dealt with, as do all ethical proposals.

"I am debating whether a fetus is human in the eyes of the United States Law."

Again a lie. What the United States Law ACTUALLY says has absolutely nothing to do with what it SHOULD say. Your resolution is a proposed action, and thus argues what SHOULD be, not what IS.

"Using your argument of philosophy (which uses rationality to denote humanity) would rule out people with Alzheimer's, dementia, and mental health diseases as having the rights both to live, and all other constitutional rights that we grant humans (as I have said previously) ."

Rights are not granted by outside entities. And I already addressed the mental illness portion.

"
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.""

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also contradicts that, with such phrases as

" Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
"

Being obligated to provide health care, food, clothing, etc, to another person, is not compatible with the right to life, liberty, and security of person. It is only compatible with slavery. The same, with being obligated to provide such to a fetus, oddly enough.

Since the document is self-contradictory, it is clearly not reliable. :D

"
You stated that courts were infallible, however law is not."

I stated the opposite. Both courts and law are fallible. You have already conceded this by arguing that abortion should be forbidden, since current US law allows abortion, due to the decision of the court. Therefore it is a contradiction for you to uphold the ethical-epistemological validity of laws, or of courts, while arguing this resolution.

"
2. I do not need to show effective without exception to show the minute odds of contracting an unwanted pregnancy, because there is a tool out there which is 100% effective and that is abstinence. I'm not advocating abstinence"

If you do not advocate x, it cannot be taken into account when discussing the flaws of your proposition.

"Furthermore adoption is also 100% effective."

This is not true. There are fewer people to adopt then there are babies to be adopted. :D.

"If as my opponent stated the period is missed after the 21 days then I suggest putting the child up for adoption. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone the right to deny human life."

False in fact (except the grant part, part of the nature of rights is that they cannot be granted), it specifically provides for "Capital crimes" existing. Note, in any case, that you have not shown the fetus to be human, i.e. rational animal.

"

Let me explain the female cycle for you clearly. Conception can only occur during ovulation. Ovulation occurs two weeks before a menstrual cycle begins. Conception occurs two weeks after your period begins."
This is not exactly true. It may be true in the majority of cases, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, however, that timing is a median timing, not an absolute. It can be longer or shorter, and may be irregular, depending on the woman. Just about any bodily process that is subject to minute changes in internal chemical ratios, including the menstrual cycle, is far too complex to be predicted as a matter of certainty.

"
Your argument on economic non necessity would apply if a fetus was not recognized as a human under united states law.
"

Whether United States law regards fetuses as human has little bearing on whether they actually are. Since this argument is about what SHOULD BE the law, and not what IS, your argument does not apply.

"
No statistics is only more complicated than you think if I was judging by 1 poll or a group of polls that were done in an incoherent manner. However when national pollsters that are highly repudiated and unbiased have the same data, we get a public opinion that is accurate. And no these polls were not conducted via the Internet, they are random phone polls."

Phone polls have an inherent bias toward phone owners, and toward people who actually respond when they hear "Hello, I am here to talk to you about your opinions, this is not a sales call, blah blah blah" (who, by the way, are frequently housewives, and therefore frequently disproportionately socially conservative) The statistical term "Bias" has a different meaning than the common term "Bias." There are no statistically "Unbiased" pollers in the world, because there are no such polling methods. And the fact that you just admitted that the pollsters are "Highly repudiated" doesn't speak well for your case.

"
Instead of trying to negate everything from the constitution, to the concept of democracy, to the laws of the United States, to court cases, to statistical polls, I suggest you provide more sufficient information on your own viewpoint instead of using anti virus software."

What relevant information have I failed to provide? You have not mentioned any.

"(by the way tracking cookies are not harmless)
"
Yes, in fact, they are, unless you are on a public computer, which is not where the anti-cookie software is marketed. They are bits of data that can only be created with your consent, and are capable of doing nothing without the computer user's input. The only conceivable harm would be if you had millions of them, to the extent of clogging bandwidth. And that, frankly, just doesn't happen.

"A. You might want to check the "infallible" constitution on cruel and unusual punishment."

You are the one who implies it is infallible, I am claiming that it is highly fallible. :D

"Fish again do not compare to human beings under the constitution."

We are not talking about human beings, i.e. rational animals, we are talking about fetuses.

"You eat fish. I sincerely hope you do not eat fetuses."

They aren't very nutritious, and the practice of eating them would spread disease. What's your point?

Cont. in comments.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
brittwaller as Cleaner

Conduct: CON. Both debaters were professional and gracious, but PRO kept referring to CON as "she." I would have liked to have seen some communication between the debaters, though, when it came to extending arguments into the comments section. CON did not protest this move, though, and provided a short summary in response.

Spelling and Grammar: Tied. Any errors were negligible.

Arguments: PRO. While I initially agreed with CON's thesis, as well as questioned the validity of some of PRO's counter-arguments and refutations, I found that PRO actually refuted quite well most of CON's points. CON framed the debate in a more philosophical way than he intended, I believe. PRO was able to take advantage of this and get rid of any legal precedence, intentionality, and majority opinion arguments, which CON based most, if not all, of his arguments on. In the end, CON did not prove his resolution, PRO refuted most of CON's points, and PRO provided sufficient reason as to why the current law should not change.

Sources: CON, as PRO provided no sources, however much he put into doubt the validity of CON's.

Overall, a win for PRO. Either way, a very well-done debate. Nice job guys:)

Britt
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Cleaners Vote:

Conduct: Tie
Both were fairly respectful, and discounting comment section back and forths, peaceful.

Spelling and Grammar: Mr. Rahl
Scissorhands spelled dementia wrong and didn't capitalize Alzheimer's.

Convincing Arguments: Scissorhands
Although this was extremely close, the combined effectiveness of abstinence, adoption, contraceptives, menstrual cycles, and the morning after pill examples basically showed that abortions after three weeks were unnecessary.

Reliable Sources: Mr. Rahl
Scissorhands misquoted the Constitution.

So that means, by a score of 3-3, this debate is a tie!
Posted by joshandr30 8 years ago
joshandr30
CWO. *v
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CLEANERS VOTER LM REPORTING FOR DUTY!

CONDUCT: Con wins on conduct. I will only ignore someone posting in the comment section on certain circumstances.

Spelling and Grammar: Several cases of poor comma usage on both sides. Tie.

Convincing arguments: Upon reading the first round, I thought I'd be voting CON. Nevertheless, PRO rises like a phoenix from the ashes in the following rounds. The problem with one of CON's main arguments is that he merely manages to establish his case on the basis of of what the Government thinks as well as what has been established by court cases. However, as PRO points out, both are fallible sources and we shouldn't make a conclusion SOLELY because of them.. There are effective ways to deal with PRO's approach( arguing that every source is fallible would do), but CON didn't use any, so I have no choice but to agree with PRO. This stuck out to me.

I'll just go over whether or not all four of PRO's reasons went through

1. PRO wins this one as he effectively demonstrated lack of reliability of the constitution. Rather than deal with having to argue the reliability of the constitution, CON should have simply pointed out that even by PRO's argument, fetuses still have the POTENTIAL (and don't get too semanticky with me here) to become humans

2. I don't buy PRO's argument against this reason. It seemed like he was grasping when arguing that 99.8 % success rate is insufficient. Also, PRO states: "It is not sufficient to demonstrate that there can be NO reason why an abortion may still be needed." Yet if we look at his first round, CON said LITTLE TO no reason. CON wins here.

3. I'll have to look over this one a bit more, but so far, it's a tie in my eyes.

4. This one seemed to fall back to the argumentation in #1, which I thought PRO won.

So that's 2-1, hence, a PRO vote as of now. I'll check again tomorrow.

Reliable Sources: This goes to CON due to all the sources he provided for his stance.

All in all. Good de
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
If you wish it to be for you, then it is. But no debate is truly over until someone concedes :D
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
The debate is over dude
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
As for the votes, toss em about however, I really don't care, lol.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
1. He has tried, but in my opinion failed at proving that the act of trespassing is a death sentence."

The act of trespassing is a death sentence only when carried to it's logical conclusion, not in all cases :D.

"2. Has said that it is legal to murder those who are braindead."
Where did I say that? I think you are confusing my statements about what is and what should be :D.

"
3. Operates on the premise that the constitution and the laws governing the United States are fallible"

True.

"
4. Has completely ignored the points I addressed and has instead decided to pick select points of his own"

Example?

"5. Has given no information other than hearsay and pure opinion."
Hearsay? where? I have given logical deduction. I'm not sure what would constitute "not opinion" lol.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
I will only respond very briefly in summation:
I have shown my side of the argument. My opponent has shown his views. I ask the members of this debate to focus on the content this arguement and to not vote based on their own preconceived views. I would like to thank my opponent for taking me on in this debate.

In summing up I would also like to list some negatives about my opponent
1. He has tried, but in my opinion failed at proving that the act of trespassing is a death sentence.
2. Has said that it is legal to murder those who are braindead.
3. Operates on the premise that the constitution and the laws governing the United States are fallible
4. Has completely ignored the points I addressed and has instead decided to pick select points of his own.
5. Has given no information other than hearsay and pure opinion.

So again I ask voters to put down their viewpoints and vote for the winner of this debate reguardless of their prior opinions

Thank You

And for the record... I'm a guy
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
B. No if you resist you will be tazed and further restrained and sent to jail for a longer period of time."

Tazing has the potential to kill me. So, might I add, does imprisoning me, as other prisoners are likely to murder me, having been assisted in this by the government removing my ability to escape.
And also, even if imprisonment does not cause my life to cease to exist, it removes it from my possession, therefore being for the extent of it's duration of equivalent consequence to me as death.

"
So are you suggesting my great grandfather who talks aloud to his dead wife while I am sitting there is rational?"

He is operating logically from the premise that his wife is there, presumably. He may not be perceptive enough to notice that his wife is not in fact there, but that is a problem in his perceptive faculty, not his rational faculty.

"Or anyone that is brain dead does not deserve to live?"

To "deserve" a thing is to have earned it by one's own conscious effort. Whosoever has no consciousness is incapable of "Deserving."

"Or that my Great Aunt who cannot even speak anymore but just mumbles incoherently in a bed deserves death?"

That is a problem with her communicative faculty, not her rational faculty.

"So are you stating that under the laws of the United States murdering any of the persons mentioned above or in your argument has no crime or penalty at all."
No, I am arguing that OUGHT to be the case. Not that that IS the case. The resolution here is a PROPOSITION, not a conjecture- a statement about what should be, not about what is.

My opponent has repeatedly ignored her own resolution. Draw whatever conclusions from that you will.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by ljmckeever1 7 years ago
ljmckeever1
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
scissorhands7Ragnar_RahlTied
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