The Instigator
Prodigenius
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ClassicRobert
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
ClassicRobert
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,910 times Debate No: 33338
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Prodigenius

Pro

As the burden of proof is on me I will even out the burden and give the burden of definition to my opponent.

I would like my opponent to give sufficient definitions for the following:

Adoption

Sufficient

Reason

Pro-life

Thank you very much in advance.
ClassicRobert

Con

I thank my opponent for allowing me to define the terms. I would like to remind the readers once more that the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that adoption is not a sufficient reason for being pro-life, and all that I need to do as Con to win this debate is show Pro's claims to be inaccurate. That being said, here are the definitions we will be using during the debate.

To adopt will be defined as "To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child (1)."

Sufficient will be defined as "adequate for the purpose; enough (2)."

Reason will be defined as "a statement offered in explanation or justification (3)."

And it seems to me that pro-life in this context is referring to being opposed to abortion, so that is the definition that will be used for this debate.

I look forward to the debate.

Sources:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Prodigenius

Pro

Adoption is one way to deal with a lost or neglected child. The child has already been born to parents who, may not have chosen to give birth to it and perhaps wouldn't have had to put it through all that pain if they had had the option to abort it.

Just because there is an option avilable to deal with already-born children doesn't mean we must force women to create them.
ClassicRobert

Con

Refutations:

1. "Adoption is one way to deal with a lost or neglected child"

The resolution that Pro has adopted is that "Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life." This argument has nothing to do with the resolution, and therefore does not contribute to fulfilling Pro's burden of proof.

2. "The child has already been born to parents who, may not have chosen to give birth to it and perhaps wouldn't have had to put it through all that pain if they had had the option to abort it."

Once again, this point bears no relevance to the resolution, and therefore doesn't contribute to fulfilling Pro's burden of proof.

3. "Just because we have the option to deal with already-born children doesn't mean we must force women to create them."

Once again, this is not relevant to the resolution. This is simply expressing the opinion of Pro that adoption should not be forced upon women. The resolution deals with whether or not adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life, not whether or not adoption should be forced on women.

Case for Con

As the thought process of a pro-lifer deals with the safety of the child, if there is a way to effectively save the life of an unborn child, a person that has the potential to be a pro-lifer will consider that a reason to be pro-life.

I would like to remind my opponent once more that the resolution that he is defending is "Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life," not "Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion."

Pro has yet to argue any points relevant to the resolution.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Prodigenius

Pro

I see there is a misunderstanding here.

What I attempted to convey in my opening speech as that just because one thing is an option isn't a reason to vehemently oppose the other option.

I am yet to see a sufficient rebuttal to this point as all my opponent has tried to do is disregard it altogether as invalid which it is most certainly not.

Additionally, the "case for con" that my opponent raises is that because the resolution was not "Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion." that this somehow justifies that Adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life. This is absolutely false because they are unrelated.
ClassicRobert

Con

I would advise my opponent be as straightforward as possible, as this can be helpful in reducing misunderstandings. What you attempted to convey in your opening speech, “that just because one thing is an option isn’t a reason to vehemently oppose the other option,” was unclear and was never explicitly said. That being said, there were a few problems with the rest of his argument.

Refutations:


"I am yet to see a sufficient rebuttal to this point as all my opponent has tried to do is disregard it altogether as invalid which it is most certainly not."

I never once said that my opponent's points were invalid. However, they had nothing to do with the resolution, and were therefore irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is that “Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life,” and my opponent only argued that “Just because there is an option available to deal with already-born children doesn’t mean we must force women to create them.” His point only states that we shouldn't force women to create children. This, however, does not address the resolution, which deals with adoption being a sufficient reason to be pro-life. None of my opponent’s arguments show that a pro-lifers reason to be pro-life should not be that adoption is an option. His arguments are simply Pro trying to say that he does not think that adoption is reason enough for his views to be pro-life, not whether or not it should be a sufficient reason for someone who is a potential pro-lifer to see adoption as a sufficient reason for being pro-life. As his points are irrelevant to the resolution, they should be disregarded, just as a point about term limits for elected officials, in this debate, would be disregarded.

“Additionally, the “case for con” that my opponent raises is that because the resolution was not “Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion.” That this somehow justifies that Adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life. This is absolutely false because the are unrelated.”

In the case for Con, it was never raised that because the resolution was not “Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion,” it justifies adoption as a sufficient reason to be pro-life. If the readers will look at my Round 2 argument, they will see that the statement was, “I would like to remind my opponent once more that the resolution that he is defending is ‘Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life,’ not ‘Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion.” This does not attempt to justify that adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life, but only asks Pro to remember what he is supposed to defend, as he has the burden of proof.

This being said, Pro has not refuted my point about the thought process of a pro-lifer, so that point still stands.

I look forward to Pro's response.

Debate Round No. 3
Prodigenius

Pro

Just because the options include adoption doesn't mean that this is a sufficient reason to be pro-life.
ClassicRobert

Con

"Just because the options include adoption doesn't mean that this is a sufficient reason to be pro-life."

My opponent offers no evidence to support this claim. Also, this claim was already addressed in a previous argument, but I will restate the refutation.

A person who has the potential to be pro-life cares about the life of the unborn child, and does not want to see that child dead as a result of an abortion. As putting a child up for adoption is an alternative to abortion that preserves the life of the child, it is, in fact, a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

Please vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
Prodigenius

Pro

But this isn't a sufficient reason to uphold the sanctity of life in the first place. Just because the adoption is an option, what nonsense?!
You are saying that it is okay because you are pro-life to then oppose abortion because adoption exists but not that the reasoning behind it is valid because adoption exists?! What reasoning is there to uphold sanctity of life to BEGIN WITH?! What a nonsense?!
ClassicRobert

Con

My opponent has failed to provide any evidence to fulfill his burden of proof. What he has essentially said throughout the debate is "The adoption option is not a reason to be pro-life because I say the adoption option is not a reason to be pro-life." He has failed to provide any evidence past that statement, and has failed to prove that adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

Please vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
Are you breaking up with me? After all we've been through? :( I'm a sad panda.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ClassicRobert wrote:
: Wiploc, for the record, I bear no ill-feelings toward you for your vote, or anything along the lines of
: that.

Thanks.

: I just have a somewhat harsh writing style.

Sometimes I do too.

: I was simply trying to understand your reasoning for how the points were relevant to the debate.
: That was all.

Okay, glad to hear it. I felt like I was under attack.

: Haha want to be friends?

Not really. I've already blocked you. I lashed out at you in a comment that, at the last minute, I deleted rather than posting. It seems that you're not someone I play well with. People I want to insult are people I need to block so as not to insult them later. So, for the sake of my civility, I'll try to keep some distance.
Posted by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
Wiploc, for the record, I bear no ill-feelings toward you for your vote, or anything along the lines of that. I just have a somewhat harsh writing style. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning for how the points were relevant to the debate. That was all. Haha want to be friends?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Ragnar wrote:
: While my vote does not agree with wiploc's, I find his vote to be valid. If it's that annoying, just
: challenge him to a debate along the lines of "Are being pro-life, and making abortions illegal the same
: thing?"

No, no, Robert was right about that. I should have said something like "being pro life" rather than "criminalizing abortion." The rest of that post didn't seem persuasive to me, but he was right about that technical detail.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
While my vote does not agree with wiploc's, I find his vote to be valid. If it's that annoying, just challenge him to a debate along the lines of "Are being pro-life, and making abortions illegal the same thing?"
Posted by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
That was not a semantic argument. A semantic argument would be twisting words around. That was simply arguing the resolution. There is a difference between arguing against something relevant to the resolution, which would be arguing the substance, and arguing something irrelevant to the debate, which would be arguing without substance. I ask you how the argument quoted below directly linked to the resolution, how it eliminated ambiguity, and "how he didn't put you to guess." Where in the argument does it do that?

"Adoption is one way to deal with a lost or neglected child. The child has already been born to parents who, may not have chosen to give birth to it and perhaps wouldn't have had to put it through all that pain if they had had the option to abort it.

Just because there is an option avilable to deal with already-born children doesn't mean we must force women to create them."
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ClassicRobert wrote:
: Simply put, an argument that is not linked to the resolution does not need to be countered. An
: argument that is not linked to the resolution should simply be ignored.

True. But Pro was not obscure in his linking. He didn't put you to the guess. There was no ambiguity. You knew what his argument was, and could have taken the other side.

Instead, you chose to gamble on a trick, and hoped the voters would agree with you. That was your choice. You were entitled to try that. But, obviously, not everyone is going to go along with it. If that makes you unhappy, then you shouldn't rely on semantic arguments, but should instead engage with the substance of the debate.
Posted by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
Simply put, an argument that is not linked to the resolution does not need to be countered. An argument that is not linked to the resolution should simply be ignored.
Posted by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
If that is all that Pro said, than it would not have been relevant to the debate, as it does not link the claim to the resolution. In order for that argument to be relevant, Pro would need to say something along the lines of "As band-aids can"t cure all knife wounds, and getting stabbed hurts, the presence of band-aids does not justify the reasoning behind stabbing people." If all that Pro said was "that getting stabbed hurts, and that some knife wounds aren't cured by band-aids" it would not have addressed the key word, "reason," and would simply be a pointless factoid that has no relevance to the debate. It would be like claiming that ukulele players are more intelligent than piano players under the same resolution. You said "That"s not a compelling argument, but it is an argument." Does that mean that Con should have to address the argument that ukulele players are more intelligent than piano players, regardless of the debate topic? In order for that argument, or any argument (like the one about getting stabbed, or in this debate the one"s about the downsides of adoption), to be relevant, the claim must be linked to the resolution. That being said, the claims of irrelevancy have to show why the argument being attacked has no relevance to the resolution, which I believe I have effectively done in the debate.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Suppose this was the resolution: Band-aids are not a sufficient reason to stab people.

And suppose Pro pointed out that getting stabbed hurts, and that some knife wounds aren't cured by band-aids.

And suppose Con's response was, "That's not relevant."

I'd vote for Pro. Pro has made his prima facia case, and Con has refused to engage.

Con might have argued that some people need stabbing, and that not all stabbing wounds have to be overly-harmful, given that they can be treated with band-aids. Therefore, given that the issue is otherwise nearly a tie, band-aids make the difference. They _suffice_ to make the difference as to whether we should be against stabbing people.

That's not a compelling argument, but it is an argument. Just saying, "You haven't said anything relevant," is not an argument.

Pro obviously said things that are relevant. Con elected not to deal with them.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Milliarde 4 years ago
Milliarde
ProdigeniusClassicRobertTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't feel Pro made arguments related to his resolution, which Con was quick to point out. As burden of proof was on Pro and it didn't seem like he even tried to argue it, merely that he is opposed to pro-lifers or abortion. Stating one's opinion and attacking the opposing position is no way to win a debate.
Vote Placed by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
A.WitherspoonVI
ProdigeniusClassicRobertTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was quite unpleasant and really fell apart in the last two rounds.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
ProdigeniusClassicRobertTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: In the final round pro lost his composure, and began writing sets of words in all caps, and using conflicting punctuation symbols next to each other. Argument to con, in essence since pro never attempted to meet his BoP, even when guided to it by con. When asked for rebuttals against con, his entire round 4 argument was "Just because the options include adoption doesn't mean that this is a sufficient reason to be pro-life." begging the question much? Really it's just hard to judge against why someone has the political belief they do on an issue. While I'm pro-choice, someone's reason to be pro-life is generally their business; even if their reasons are weak, there's no need to insult them for it.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ProdigeniusClassicRobertTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.