The Instigator
Jacobbruce
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
anaklusmos
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 101362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

Jacobbruce

Con

It's a scientific fact that life begins at conception. If you abort an unborn baby you're ending it's life, thus killing it.
anaklusmos

Pro

The baby is not yet born therefore you are not exactly killing it. Also may I add that if the baby had been born, the parents may be unfit to raise a child and it is better to not have the problem.
Debate Round No. 1
Jacobbruce

Con

The definition of kill is:cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

The definition of death is:the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.

If you abort an unborn baby, you end the vital processes in its cells/tissue, thus putting it to death and killing it. Also, if the parents are unfit to raise the child once it's been born they can put it up for adoption.R32;
anaklusmos

Pro

First of all, we are in a debate not a walking dictionary competition. Anyway, if aborted before eighteen weeks, a baby will not feel organic pain and adoption or other options can still be very traumatizing or uncomfortable to a child causing them to have an unhealthy lifestyle anyway.
Debate Round No. 2
Jacobbruce

Con

a child put up for adoption might or might not have an unhealthy lifestyle. But even if it does,I'm sure that in the end it will be thankful it wasn't aborted.
anaklusmos

Pro

A baby can not remember being the the womb and therefore can not remember being aborted. And if they have an unhealthy lifestyle they may grow up to be a menace to society.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'm seriously not getting this. I didn't say that your vote did not include "all the other five points," which is a nonsensical statement because you could have awarded 7 and only chose to award 1. You didn't have to include any specific number of points, you simply had to justify the point total you chose to allocate. That point total was 1. I'm really not at all clear on what you are looking for, and every time you try to clarify it, it seems all the more difficult to understand.

Regarding your latter statement, I go through a tremendous number of votes on a given night. I don't have time to politely tell every single person whose votes I peruse that they need more explanation, keep track of all of the debates on which this occurs, and check back with every single one to find out if the vote's been changed. I don't do that because I simply don't have time for it, and I doubt anyone on this website would be willing to take that kind of step.

I don't know some "hidden fact" - I've explained to you what the standards are, and how they apply to your vote. I'm not hiding anything from you, and frankly, I've been more blatant with you than anyone I can remember in a long time. I don't see how I'm being partial, either, as I've never questioned whether your opinion has merit. This is an issue of how you chose to cast your vote, not of your opinions.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
You keep going off on a tangent as though that"s the only thing that matters,"
It"s not a tangent just questions while I wait for the answer on how you made the determination my reason for voting was not including all the other five points, as well as the one you felt was not represented clearly in the scale for voting. By now it is obvious to me you could have simple asked first for clarification in the comments section before you reported fowl. You obviously new something hidden fact and I would like for you to share please? As if you haven"t gathered by now I am asking because I question your impartiality.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
The word is "moot" not "mute," and it doesn't matter what I believe with regards to abortion. I've told you multiple times that I will not debate the topic itself with you here. You keep going off on that tangent as though that's the only thing that matters, but the only conversation we've actually had (i.e. the only thing we've actually gone back and forth about) is the issue of whether or not your vote meets the standards. You can call abortion whatever you like, it's not going to draw me into whatever discussion you want to have. That "forum mediator" is Blade-of-Truth, and he's the deputy vote moderator. We work together on these things. I hope that you take into consideration what he's told you with regards to your options.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
All of this is still mute, you do not believe that abortion is not illegal because of a confession to a crime of murder. It is illegal due to the fact it is a self-incrimination that is asking for public permission so no is always an acceptable answer. No matter any opinion that does not address the representation of the concern of crime, that alone is a reasonable explanation to vote against a position in debate. I simply move to the next step and describe a condition of Gender specific Amputation, as the Constitutional representation as it implies not public self-incrimination to any-one.

To understand the difference between the two choices. Look at it this way, there are now at least 24 million woman who have confessed and asked permission to commit a crime, to receive medical treatment that could have been addressed in a constitutional way. Gender Specific Amputation. Is it abortion; I do not know, do you? Could it be describing an abortion, maybe, but I do not know for sure. It is not a confession. I do not know because the woman or men don"t have to tell me confess any more, using abortion. There is are choices to words that not self-incriminate people publicly. Well unless you can prove that Gender Specific Amputation means to officially stop a pregnancy. My explanation was and will always be a self-defense to the incrimination.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
That is odd because on my screen, where comments are posted clearly said, in writing whiteflame has reported your vote. I was thinking about re-casting my vote after having spoken to a mediator. The first time I voted the debate remained a tie at least on my end due to how my votes had been cast in all 6 categories. To spite my lack of detailed explanation on all six categories of vote. A forum mediator had a discussion with me, via private email on my choices on voting again.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
John, my only post regarding the report and removal did not specify the name of the person who reported the vote. That information is not disseminated, but I can tell you that I did not report this vote.

Yes, you did not explain this vote, and you seem to get that since you're saying that the issue I'm bringing up is reasonable. You may have cast other votes that similarly lack explanation, and those can be removed as well if, like this, they don't meet the standards and are reported.

I'm not clear on your point regarding the ongoing tie. Yes, by removing your vote, this debate is now tied. That doesn't justify leaving your vote up, it just tells me that few people have voted on this debate. You seem to be trying to make a statement with your vote about the general issue of abortion, which you're welcome to do here in the comments or in a forum, but not as a means of casting a vote, as you tried to do. I don't care if you feel fully justified by whatever information you deem relevant - this isn't an issue of whether or not your vote came from a place of logic, but rather, an issue of whether or not you met the standards sufficiently to cast this vote. If you were really, truly concerned about breaking the tie on this debate, then your goal should be to discuss what you could do to meet the standards, and then re-casting your vote. I'm not sure why you've made it about the topic itself, on which you clearly seem strongly biased.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
I am sorry. It is uncertain to me if you are aware but on my side of the scene, in comments, it clearly said next to your name. Has Reported Vote violation. No big deal, if you said you didn"t then the comment screen is wrong. It may have not been your intention to be identified as the source of report, but never the less it happened and on my side it said you did. No big deal.

Did not explain? I cast 6 votes and did not detail each of them separately. Your issue with my vote is reasonable. However, it may now have implication, as I gained new problem due to the fact my vote actual supported an ongoing tie, when impartially tallied, even after an openly disapproval of the legality of public made self-incrimination confessions, by those asking for my permission. Abortion. Roe V's. Wade is silently about the woman having legal right to publicly confession so the position is basically winnable. The winnable stance is not a firm legal precedent set on Abortion, abortion as a self-incriminating confession, made with a woman having a right to ask the public for permission to commit a crime. By constitution.

Ok, it was no debate. You say Judge, I say Juror, Judges can be made into jurors by certain public actions. I provided an explanation as to why the use of the word judge is only a fugitive speech in debate. Incidental water under the bridge. The point I am trying resolve is that my vote, was to spite my honest personal opinion, a tie vote. That natural process is now skewed. So I am better off leaving the debate as tie. As the number of ties does not matter, right?

No I did not make the disagreement clear, my disagreement is made with the statement gender specific amputation as a constitutional replacement for abortion only.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
First off, I didn't report your vote. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't spend my time selecting random debates and reporting votes as I see them. I get more than enough reports every day, and I don't need nor do I want to add to that workload. I haven't reported a single vote in months for that reason.

Second, you don't get points for explaining tied point totals. You're not even required to explain why you chose not to award points for other categories. The sole issue I care about is whether or not you justified your point allocations based on the standards for voting. You allocated one point (S&G) and justified it with your explanation about abortion as an issue rather than examining arguments made in the debate. So I addressed a) the reality that you didn't explain S&G in any way that remotely resembled what's required based on the standards, b) that your explanation chiefly involved information taken from outside the debate, including no evaluation of anything said within it, and c) that your subsequent points about S&G, conduct, and arguments would not be sufficient reason to award any of those points. I am not required to continue discussing this with you, nor am I under any obligation to provide you guidance when it comes to future voting on this debate or any other, though I have continued to do so regardless.

Third, we have not now nor have we ever entered a debate. This is not a debate, nor a sub debate. It's a conversation about the standards, where you've made it clear that you disagree with... something. It's not quite clear if that disagreement is with the standards or with my application of them, but it's clear you disagree with something. If you'd like to clarify that disagreement, be my guest. We can have a more specific discussion of your concerns in that instance. However, if you want to have a discussion about jurors and their relation to voting on debates, then you'll have to bring that elsewhere. It's not related to this issue.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Of course you know what I am looking for, you are the reason I am looking, let"s not beat around the bush you reported my vote. I was looking for the reason you reported my vote. As it was the fastest way to resolve the issue. What I have been able to deduce so far is that there was an issue with the Spelling & Grammar vote. This was due to the point that the comment portion on my ballot vote also included reasoning to the number of tie votes, votes I had also cast and I had not given detail of, not singling out the grammar and spelling portion of the vote cast like a test grade by a teacher.

We have since enter a sub debate on the fact that a test can be placed equally between a Juror and a Judge by any one in public with a debate. However your intellect has misdirected and distracted the idea of basic fact, a Juror is describe by principle as the person who is combined with others voters, and as a group casting many votes tallied with others to form one, then that vote decides a fate based on information provided by a person that is shared with all other as jury.

Ta Da!
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Two thing. One: A group of Judges are a Jury and in fact become Jurors and are not the judge in that matter anymore. Two: A Judge is really only a position that is created by the use of a basic judicial separation. The Judge oversee guidelines of interpretation of Law in a documented trial and it is the jury which reaches a decision based on guidance only. A group of judges gathered as a group without separation protection based on constitution are a tribunal this is a different type of trial. All this is to explain that a judge of a debate is a figure of speech only. The reality is we are all jurors.

I was not thrilled myself with the way may vote had been split into a tie on this debate. It is frustrating as a person debating as well as the person voting on it. To narrow this constitutionally. The fact remains that abortion is a self-incriminating confession that asks the public for permission. Gender Specific Amputation is a confession without the self-incrimination, and is not asking for public for permission. It does not need pubic permission it is a basic separation based on basic principle without criminal confession. It could be something like abortion but different. You are right we just proved you don"t know.
No votes have been placed for this debate.