The Instigator
kingcripple
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
progressivedem22
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Abortion

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 3 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,087 times Debate No: 43796
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

kingcripple

Con

I believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this. Please someone, anyone, on either side of the argument debate me. You will be the Pro position

Rules
4 rounds

R1 acceptance of challenge, acknowledgement and acceptance of rules

R2 opening statements on both sides plus any questions my challenger wants to have answered regarding my opening statements

R3 rebuttals

R4 closing statements

voting period 3 days

time to argue 72 hours

10,000 Characters (more than there was allowed the last time I logged on, over a year ago haha)

Sooooo..... Any takers?
progressivedem22

Pro

I'll accept your challenge and the rules you set, though my only question is of clarification. You mentioned in your first post that you have an argument as to why abortion should be illegal. Therefore, my understanding is that you will be arguing not exclusively that abortion is wrong, but that it should be outlawed. I just want to make sure, as I am in no way condoning abortion, but simply feel that it should remain legal.

With that said, best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
kingcripple

Con

Sorry, it's 2AM here. I should have said that the debate is over what makes abortion a viable choice, different connotation than illegal vs legal.

Statistics

Everyone asks the question, why should we be ok with abortion? Why did you get an abortion? The answer is simple. While there are many reasons, the main one basically is not wanting a baby. Not being ready for a baby. Not feeling mature enough to have a baby. Basically, not wanting to take responsibility for making a baby. Now there are cases of rape and incest -which is among the biggest reason Pro Choice proponents use to support the woman's right to choose-, where the woman did not choose to have sex, those instances are few and far between.

A poll done in 1987 questioning women on why they got an abortion, 3/4 stated that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, 2/3 said that they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems, A multivariate analysis showed young teenagers to be 32 percent more likely than women 18 or over to say they were not mature enough to raise a child. Only 19% said their parents wanted them to have the abortion. Not a single participant mentioned anything about being raped or participating, either willingly or non willingly, in incest. [1] Overwhelmingly, the reason essentially was not wanting to take responsibility

Another study done nearly 20 years later has similar results. Researchers found 40% of these women mentioning something financial, 36% in some way discussing the bad "timing" of the pregnancy, 31% raising a partner issue, 29% speaking of "other children," 20% talking of the child somehow interfering with future opportunities. Financial, bad timing, other children, interfering with future opportunities.[2] With the exception of the 31% percent claiming the "raising a partner issue" (which I am not clear on what this means, though I have an idea), this boils down to not wanting to take responsibility.

Let's look at the financial aspect for a second. Why not get a job? Yeah the economy sucks, but it's not impossible to get a job. Could it just be laziness? Or maybe they would rather spend that money on themselves and not have to "waste" money on a child. which would harken back to the 36% citing bad timing and the 20% who fear a baby would interfere with future opportunities.

Finally to drive this statistical point home, another source cites that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape and/or incest. 21% are due to financial reasons and another 21% due to (GASP!) not wanting responsibility.[3] combined that is 42% (combined, the majority polled) who do not want the responsibility, financial or otherwise, of taking care of a baby.

Now I will touch on arguments that a Pro Choice proponent may bring up and debunk them

2. Polls I have cited are biased

Or are they? I will readily admit that 2 of the 3 websites I cited in my previous argument are from Christian organizations. The first, is a government website. So on the surface it seems extremely biased. But is it really? It would seem that if the woman's right to choose was so important, that Pro Choice proponents would be chomping at the bit to show statistics disproving my theory that the vast majority of women who get abortions do not want the responsibility. But I have found none.

"But it's her choice. She shouldn't have to answer to you or anyone else, you sexist, oppressive brute"

Maybe, Maybe not. The point I am trying to make is, in order to make a well thought out decision about having an abortion, you ought to be able to defend your actions. And saying that you just are not ready for a baby is frankly, a cop out. How many feminists would be up in arms about a man trying to skip out on child support payments because he claims he is "not ready"?

3. Rape

Ah yes, the rape defense. Rape is a horrible thing, to be sure. I would wish rape on absolutely no one. Not even my most hated enemy. But to say that remaining pregnant and giving birth to a child out of rape is just to painful an ordeal to have to deal with every day for the rest of your life.... well you are forgetting a few things.

First, someone making this claim does not realize that not giving birth to a baby conceived from a rape, does not change the fact they were raped. It does not completely heal the wound. And it never will. In using this side of the rape argument, I always ask "Is it the baby's fault?", "Does that give you any less capacity to love that baby?", and my favorite, "Does that make the baby any less deserving of love and the right to live?" I mean this is not a murderer we are talking about. It's a darn baby!

The same would apply to the claim of not wanting to bring a disabled child into the world to live a difficult life. Does that too not make the baby any less deserving of love and the right to live? This is coming from someone who is disabled.

Another thing that I do not think people consider is, while rape is a very psychologically damaging experience, abortion is too. Much in the same way that rape is. there are countless women who have experienced tremendous depression and pain and regret after having an abortion [4] [5] [6].

So which is the lesser of the two evils? Which would a woman who is considering an abortion after being raped rather live with, the painfully damaging experience of being raped or the painfully damaging experience of being raped AND having an abortion. In one case, you are dealing with only one damaging experience, In the other two.

Let's think about this as well, rape aside, would you still want to deal with the painful experience of having abortion? Why? Forget for a moment about "It's my body, my choice", and answer why you would rather live with potential regret for the rest of your life over having an abortion, than carry the child? Most likely not having the responsibility of taking care of the baby, to which we would then have to revert back to point one and go through all other points in an endless cycle.

And that is why Abortion is not a viable choice*.

*considering that the mother and baby both would be perfectly healthy through the pregnancy and birth

sources:
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. http://www.lifenews.com...
3. http://www.operationrescue.org...
4. http://www.experienceproject.com...
5. http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org...
6. http://www.lifenews.com...
progressivedem22

Pro

Well, that wasn"t the angle from which I agreed to debate, but I"ll argue the case nevertheless.

My first argument will, in line with the rules my opponent has set, only address my core arguments"though, inevitably, there will be overlap, but I will not mention his data directly.

Let me begin by saying that I do not personally condone abortion, and one need not do so in order to believe that abortion is a viable choice"even if we are to accept that a zygote or a fetus are persons, which is, by and large, a theological view. My personal opinion"informed by my Catholic faith--is irrelevant ("separation of church and state," which the Supreme Court has long upheld, is a core tenet of the Constitution and of the founding of the U.S.). Not only am I a man, who can never become pregnant, but I have never been intimately involved in a dilemma that would lead one to have an abortion, so I can"t surmise what they must have been feeling. This is not a fun thing for women to choose, but it is false to say that they eventually will regret their decision; indeed, many do, but many also report feeling relieved in having made the right decision at the time. Studies have reported, for instance, that 87% of women are "highly confident" about their choice. 90% said that their primary reaction was "relief." In fact, evidence shows that procedures aimed at discouraging women from having abortions--e.g., mandatory ultrasounds--actually do not, by and large, deter women from making this decision. Ultimately, the attempt to demonize these women as monsters for making a choice about their own bodies"a right that the Supreme Court has protected for 40 years as a Constitutional right to privacy"is largely disingenuous, and rooted in fallacy.

First, abortion is a viable option in the case of rape. A 2004 survey placed the number (the percentage of abortions that follow rape) at 1%. But we need to take that number in context: that"s 1% of 1.3 million women, or 13,000 abortions after rape, with the survey indicating the average figure is around 19,500 per year.

Let"s put aside the figures for a second, though, and consider this in context. Is the counterargument truly that, because the number is small relative to the total number of women who have abortions, that it is negligible and we should forget about it? Should we accept Rep. Trent Frank"s view that "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy [is] very low?" Not only is that highly offensive, but it"s simply not true. A 1996 study by the Medical University of South Carolina determined that 5 percent of rape victims aged 12 to 45 became pregnant as a result"32,000 pregnancies per year. They wrote "[r]ape-releated pregnancy occurs with significant frequency [and] it is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence." A study in 2000 by the University of California, San Francisco placed the number at 25,000 per year.

But let"s look at the broader picture. Are you truly willing to force a women who has been raped"who has been traumatized"to carry to term, against her will, her rapist"s child? Are you going to force her to report the crime, and subject her to the torment that will inevitably come (in fact, there"s a thread on DDO where people are questioning whether the victim"s testimony is valid evidence in court"in essence questioning whether she is lying about it or whether she "enjoyed it")? Are you going to force her to undergo a mandatory, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound, as they must do in Virginia? Even under a proposal, such as one that Governor Romney presented in 2012"where abortion would be legal in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (and, by the way, he wanted the states to decide, so a state could still prohibit it in those circumstances"there is still a key problem: how will women "prove" that they have been raped? Romney commented that he would probably want to "just trust them," but a recent Republican proposal"yes, created by the House Judiciary Committee"s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice all-male panel, headed by Trent Franks"would allow the I.R.S. to determine what constitutes rape or incest? Why is it that Republicans only support government intervention when it comes to abortion?

Let us also not forget about this important question: How about the "rights of the rapist?" Will he have any custody over the child? In 31 states, he does in fact have those legal rights, which I think is a travesty.

There are several important takeaways from this 2004 study, though. One is that, as the abstract says, "[t]he decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons." Of the 1,209 patients who were interviewed, 74% claimed that it would interfere with their education, work, or ability to care for people who financially depend on them; 73% cited financial constraints; 48% cited relationship problems, or had no assistance with raising the child, and would need to be a single mother. Common themes were limited resources, money, and lack of support. The ability for a women to control whether or not she has a child determines whether she will be able to be active in the world and to contribute to society. It is, of course, unavoidable that she--and only she--must carry the child for nine months, while her partner can, and in many cases does, simply back out. Why should she alone be held responsible?

Next, let's discuss further the notion of women being unable to afford a child, as that has been demonstrated as a primary concern among women seeking abortions. Women with incomes below the federal poverty line account for over 40% of all abortions. About 60% of women who have abortions already have a child, and 30% have two or more children. How is it possible to brand these women as irresponsible, when the data is quite clear that they, simply put, cannot afford to have another child? Would it not be more irresponsible for a women to bring another child into the world, whom she knows she cannot probably pay to support? Not only would she threaten herself, her family, and the children she already has, but she would threaten the life of this child. It's certainly not ideal no matter how you frame it, but that's why this issue should be left to the discretion of the mother. Circumstances differ depending on the respective families, and my opponent's view--that abortion should not be a viable choice, and as he noted in his first post, that it should be illegal--removes these decision from women, and imposes a "one-size-fits-all" plan devised by government bureaucrats. Is this truly a plausible path? Can the government truly intervene and tell women that they ought not have sexual intercourse if they cannot support a child (even if they are using birth control)--and, if they do, and get an abortion (because there is also data indicating, even prior to Roe v. Wade, that banning abortion does not eliminate it, but simply makes it more dangerous, but that's not what our debate is on), that they should be prosecuted? Forcing a women to go through with a pregnancy is effectively forced birth, and that represents an authoritarian position that I cannot endorse.

Likely the most cited reason as to why abortion is a viable choice is to protect the health and life of the mother--including cases where the fetus, also, would not survive. Former U.S. representative Joe Walsh once inaccurately asserted that "there is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology." A valid counterexample, for instance, is ectopic pregnancies, where the child is born outside of the uterus. The National Institutes of Health report that these occur in a range of 1 in every 40 to 1 in every 100 pregnancies, and the fetus must be removed to save the life of the mother.

There was an example from Ireland from about a year ago that is relevant. A woman named Savita Halappanavar, who experienced a miscarriage, died from blood poisoning after having been denied an abortion. Irish law prevented her from having one unless medical professionals thought her life was at risk, and, in most cases, wouldn't perform them even in a case such at this due to legal boundaries and "wanting to play it safe."

Therefore, I believe that abortion is a viable choice--and should remain legal--even if I personally don't happen to endorse it.

http://www.minnpost.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.thenation.com...
http://www.womenscenter.com...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.guttmacher.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.prochoice.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kingcripple

Con

I do not know debate you agreed on but that is beside the point....

First I want to state that 1% of either 1.3 million OR 1.21 million(which is the approximated number of abortions a year given in my previous argument, source #3) is still 1%. And given that my source gave 21% of women citing not wanting a baby, that is 273,000 of your 1.3 million and 254,100 of my 1.21 million statistic. Let's call a spade a spade here. 1% is just about the smallest minority you can get into without getting into crazy decimals. The point I was trying to make was to say that the majority of women who get abortion do so, so as to not have to take on the huge responsibility of caring for a child. That does not nullify my claim that rape is still not a viable reason for abortion. I will touch on this again in a minute

Second, At the end of my opening argument, I put a little astrisk. That astrisk was to indicate that we are considering that both baby and mother would be perfectly healthy during pregnancy and at the time of birth. Seeing as this was established before my Opp made any arguments, I ask that he kindly withdraw his argument about the health of the mother and/or the child. I can admit that it would be a very hard decission to come to terminate the baby if either lives were put in peril due to said pregnancy.

To answer the question "Should the rape victim be forced to carry to term her rapists child?", I would have to ask you to answer questions I posted in my opening argument:
1. Is it the baby's fault?
2. Does that give you any less capacity to love that baby?
3. Does that make the baby any less deserving of love and the right to live?

I would also ask that my Opp justify his answers to each

These days it is fairly easy to determine rape. If someone is raped they SHOULD report it, as rape is a crime. Would you say the same about a murder victim's family "being forced" to testify against an accused murderer. If we want to see justice for crimes we must speak up, as painful as it may be. Please withdraw this point as well as it really has no bearing for this debate.

Another thing I must point out, that I failed to do so in my opening arguments is that Pro-Choice people so often forget about the option of adoption, whether it be for a child out of rape or otherwise. How is that not a better option? Several couples are unable to bear children who desparately want children. They get the child they desire and thus the woman who could have gotten an abortion escapes responsibility of taking care of said child, like she so desparately wants. That seems to be win win to me. I ask my Opp to answer why he believes adoption is not a better option and justify his answer

In response to your question "what about the rights of the rapist", what about the rights of the man who slept with the woman considering the abortion that was not a rape. He had equal part in creating the baby, should he not have equal say in whether or not the baby is born? Why should the mother have the only say in what happens to her baby when she only played PART of a role in creating it? As per my other paragraphs I ask my Opp to answer these questions and justify his answers.

My Opp seems to be preoccupied with the issue of rape.

In response to my Opp's counter argument that not having the funds to take care of a child, wouldn't this be another case in which adoption is a more viable option than abortion? Also, who's to say the woman can't get a job or apply for government assistance? Is she disabled and cannot work? If my Opp can not answer these question, I ask he withdraw or concede this argument.

My final response is the question of deadbeat dads. There are several punishments available to deadbeat dads who do not want to take responsibility for children they helped create. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Rape aside, shouldn't the same punishments be available to women who get abortions? Answer and justify your answer as per always please.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (section 3 specifically)

2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...

3. http://www.cnn.com...

4. http://singleparents.about.com...

5. http://singleparents.about.com...
progressivedem22

Pro

I'm not interested in continuing this debate any further, especially with my classes beginning in this coming week. But there are a few things I feel the need to point out. I'm hoping people who read this will take heed and proceed with caution before debating you in the future. Moreover, I hope you learn that someone has taken note of your sly tactics and, quite honestly, doesn't much care for them.

First, you want to narrow this debate topic to the point where you can trap me on so tangential a point as "abortion is a viable choice in situations x, y and z." The problem is, I never agreed to debate that, and you're trying to run away from the negative, controversial side of your position.

Worst of all is that this was never agreed upon. You claim that, because you used an asterisk in your first comment (and I'll get to that next), before I posted my first argument, that you're justified in changing the parameters of the debate. That isn't true. Your first post--where you laid out the topic of this debate--indicates that we would be discussing the LEGALITY of abortion. You said that you had an argument as to why abortion should be ILLEGAL; whether it's a viable choice was irrelevant at that point (though whether it is could certainly support an argument for or against legality), but you decided to change the question thereafter to address abortion as a viable option, claiming as your excuse that it was "2 a.m." From there, I accepted because (1) you had already posted your argument, (2) I could indeed make the case that it was a viable choice, and (3) frankly, your arguments were hanging on by a thread, and some were not only factually inaccurate, but horribly offensive toward women--calling them irresponsible, claiming that they should "get a job" (by the way, there are three unemployed people for every job vacancy, so good luck with that--not everyone can be so privileged), etc.--and you failed to cite your statistics that these women are unemployed (probably because they don't exist). You completely dismissed the fact that women who have abortions, who claim that they were either not ready to be a parent or cannot financially support a child, have plans to one day be a parent--they want to be mothers, but simply are not ready. Could we debate the morality of that? Yes, we could. But I didn't agree to debate that. In fact, I told you in my first post that I am opposed to abortion--I don't like it, but I'm in no position to make that decision for women. I accept that people will hold different views, and many women who get abortions are religious. They may even call themselves pro-life. Degrading them in such a way, I truly find repugnant. And trying to change the topic in such a way that you KNOW provides the upper edge to yourself--especially because my first post indicated that I don't like abortion--is quite low.

Let's move on to the exceptions for health and life--which, again, were not in your first post. Not only did your first post not indicate that the question would be on whether abortion was a viable choice--which, again, I normally would not have agreed to debate, because I don't want to discuss the morality of such a divisive issue--but you never indicated those exceptions. Even in your first argument (and by the way, it doesn't work like that), you never specified those exceptions. You wrote "considering that the mother and baby both would be perfectly healthy through the pregnancy and birth." I don't want to make this about semantics, but I have to. This is not a specification or limitation of your statement, but simply an assumption: "Abortion is not a viable choice considering this fact." If you say, "provided that the mother and baby are healthy, abortion is not a viable choice," you would have, at least, made the point. I actually took note of this last-minute flip-flop of yours before I posted my argument, and wanted to comment on it, but knew that I won the game of semantics (and, frankly, of adherence to the site rules and even the rules that you yourself set).

The point is, you can ask me to "kindly withdraw" all you would like, but that doesn't change the indisputable fact that you have cheated--in several ways--in order to provide for yourself an unfair advantage in a debate conducted over the internet with a complete stranger, without a prize of any kind. If you care so much about the win in this debate, you can have it. I won't be responding to this, so when this moves to the voting period, people can vote for you--I'd hope that they would adjust their votes accordingly to account for the fact that you unjustly changed the rules AFTER the debate was underway and after I had accepted, but I wouldn't blame them if they simply awarded you all of the points. I have a lot of things to worry about in my life, and trust me when I say that this is hardly on my list of priorities.

With that said, I hope you can take something from this post, and these circumstances will never again occur.
Debate Round No. 3
kingcripple

Con

Well, I guess I won by forfeit, which is a shame. My Opponent willingly took on this debate. Maybe I was unclear on some things in the beginning, I can take blame for just that much. My Opp's unwillingness to adapt to whatever he misinterpreted is not my fault.

As you can see, my Opp resorted to insults and the like. I have not. He just cannot come up with retorts to my arguments. Anyone can disagree with an argument from anyone, but you must be willing to defend your position, as I have did.

This seems just an angry attempt to further defame me as one not so esteemed member of DDO has tried and failed to do (not my Opp).

My point in having this debate was as I stated, I thought I had a good argument against abortion being a viable choice. (see my argument on rape trauma and post abortion trauma specifically). Yes I initially said "why abortion should be illegal ", but upon questioning from my Opp, I made things more clear, the way I had intended. He took the debate anyway. I did not want to have this debate to win, I wanted this debate to see what argument a pro choice person would have against my arguments. And my Opp did that. Pretty well I believe. But when it came time for rebuttals and cross examinations, he could not take the heat, as any of you reading can tell, he resorted to bullying.

I welcome anyone to debate me on this or any other topic. Anyone with two eyes can see I do not resort to sneaky underhanded tactics.

I apologize for not being clear, but I do not apologize for my arguments or my rebuttals.
progressivedem22

Pro

Nice try, but that's not going to suffice.

Here is your entire first post:

"believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this. Please someone, anyone, on either side of the argument debate me. You will be the Pro position

Rules
4 rounds

R1 acceptance of challenge, acknowledgement and acceptance of rules

R2 opening statements on both sides plus any questions my challenger wants to have answered regarding my opening statements

R3 rebuttals

R4 closing statements

voting period 3 days

time to argue 72 hours

10,000 Characters (more than there was allowed the last time I logged on, over a year ago haha)

Sooooo..... Any takers?"

Note that in this first post there is no mention at all of abortion as a "viable choice." It only mentions legality.

You weren't "clarifying" this in your second argument, but you changed the rules. You say that I simply took on the debate. What was the alternative? Forfeit? Was that your strategy? Change the debate after the point of acceptance in the hope of having me forfeit? You weren't clarifying: you changed the topic in its entirety. Those are two completely difference questions, and the "clarification" on the two exceptions was introduced long after the fact.

Also, I really resent the fact that you would posit that I attacked you personally. That never once happened. I pointed out facts--(1) your remarks that women are irresponsible was inaccurate and hateful and (2) you cheated. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
kingcrippleprogressivedem22Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Alright, so there's a lot going wrong in this debate. Con really should have clarified the debate earlier than he did, either through a comment or by messaging his opponent. Even if I accept that it's perfectly fine to set the debate parameters in the second round, Con shouldn't be contradicting his first round post, nor should he include addendums in asterisks at the bottom of his post. That just comes off as a last minute "here, I'm going to take your ground" maneuver, and it doesn't come off well. Neither does the fact that 3 of Con's sources are personal accounts of people being upset with their decision to abort rather than studies of the same. They really don't come off as good sources, and Con practically admits this. That being said, I'm still voting for Con in arguments. I may thoroughly disagree with them, but they're the most solid ones in the round. The adoption argument is untouched, and Pro practically concedes in round 3.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 2 years ago
TheAntidoter
kingcrippleprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to underhanded tactics on the part of con, Pro will gain conduct. An example of S&G is "The first, is a government website. " Good job to both debaters, and @KingCripple, please don't move the goalposts.
Vote Placed by mir9 2 years ago
mir9
kingcrippleprogressivedem22Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Although con gave good arguments, pro has a point that con ran away from the debate topic.