Debate Rounds (5)
1: Use sources
2: Be respectful
3: Stick to rounds
4: Have fun
5: Breaking a rule results in automatic forfeit to me
2: Opening statements
5: Closing statements and why the viewers should vote for you.
Good luck and let the debate begin whenever my opponent is ready!
A fetus is a living human. By having an abortion you are tearing a living human out of someone piece by piece. They require things that give them energy.
Conclusion: Stop killing people and vote neg!
The claim of morality of abortion may be disputed but the facts are not. Abortions did not begin with roe vs wade. Safe abortions did. There is a Central American study done in countries that stopped abortions. More loss of life occurred. More women committed suicide. More women drank bleach or had coat hanger abortions that resulted in (most of the times) death. And the women who did give birth just threw their babies into trash cans. So in the end, according to the study, more babies and MORE women died.
I suggest you study this pdf, might change your mind: https://www.guttmacher.org...
While the zygote,fetus, or whatever stage it is in it is not a human PERSON. While it may be a human it is not a recognized person and therefore should not be given the rights that a PERSON should have. As stated above abortion actually saves more lives.
Dont be emotional, stick to facts. Vote PRO
Tmurdock forfeited this round.
A dash of facts and a pinch of reality wins the abortion debate very quickly
So i win the debate
intro: Is a fetus a living human?
1: Why this is killing. "In the past two years, a number of states have considered or enacted legislation designed to protect fetuses and punish individuals who injure them or cause their death. The ACLU recognizes that a woman may suffer a serious physical and emotional injury if her pregnancy is ended by an assault, a drunk driving accident, or other criminal or negligent acts. But we have serious reservations about legislation designed to protect fetuses, because it can endanger women's rights by reinforcing claims of "fetal rights" in the law. "
2: Must prevent this. "The responsibility to protect is a principle which seeks to ensure that the international community
never again fails to act in the face of genocide and other gross forms of human rights abuse.
"R2P," as it is commonly abbreviated, was adopted by heads of state and government at the
World Summit in 2005 sitting as the United Nations General Assembly. The principle stipulates,
first, that states have an obligation to protect their citizens from mass atrocities; second, that the
international community should assist them in doing so; and, third, that, if the state in question
fails to act appropriately, the responsibility to do so falls to that larger community of states. R2P
should be understood as a solemn promise made by leaders of every country to all men and
women endangered by mass atrocities. "
3: Morally wrong. God himself gave the commandment of thou shalt not kill. It is morally wrong!
Conclusion: Vote with me
You have not rebutted the fact that MORE people die if you stop abortions
The fact that it is alive is meaningless. A mosquito is a living thing, a bot fly is a living thing and an ISIS member is a living thing!
I dont see you protesting the drone strike program that kills thousands of innocent people and i dont see you protesting insecticide that kills billions of insects.
Also why bring God into this? I don't care what your God thinks. He kills billions of people in your holy book most for absolutely no reason. Saying God is moral is hilarious because even HE COMMITTED ABORTION. Hosea 13:16 and he sets guidelines for abortion read Numbers 5
Without abortion poverty levels would tremendously increase. The number of unwanted pregancies in the south correlates with its poverty
Here watch this video everyone who is watching this debate. It will make you realize why the South is such a failure
My opponent fails to rebut anything i say and keeps saying the same thing over and over
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I vote based on the argument that more people die when abortion is illegal. Even if I buy Con's claims of immorality, R2P and just plain killing is bad (all of which come in the final round), this outweighs. Pro didn't do enough to prove that a fetus is not life, but he really didn't have to because he has the basic claim, supported by evidence, that legal abortion results in fewer lives lost. That's really enough to end this debate, and the fact that Con dropped that point sinks his case.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.