The Instigator
logicrules
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

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 11 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,323 times Debate No: 19049
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (11)

 

logicrules

Pro

The rules here are simple:
1. The bible is not a source
2. Pro/Con/Pro because the burden is on the affirmative.
3. Any logical fallacy employed in any argument need only be identified (cite the logical fallacy) as fallacious reasoning to be refuted.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu...

http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Double_R

Con

Accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
logicrules

Pro

Thank you.

Pro Life shall mean all who hold to the Pro Life position as outlined on ProLife.org, (RTL), or from State or local cites.
"The mission … promote and defend the right of life to all ...from fertilization to natural death."

When an individual, or entity, makes two statements, both of which cannot be true, one need not establish which is false to establish that the individual is disingenuous. (Paraphrase of perjury Law) It is by this principle that I shall establish, all who support Pro Life must oppose capital punishment.

RTL GOALS
1.Reverse Wade
2.Actively oppose euthanasia and/or Right to Die legislation
3.Promote human dignity
4.Promote a change in legal status of the Fetus to person-hood.

Suicide and euthanasia are death by means of human assistance. Capital punishment involves human assistance in terminating life by other than natural causes. Thus, Pro Life adherents oppose any and all assisted death.

Opposition to assisting in Human death IS the sine qua non.
Double_R

Con

My opponent has either badly misinterpreted the term “Pro life” or is simply trying to affirm that Pro life does not or should not mean what people think it does.

Pro Life: "opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion"
http://www.yourdictionary.com...

In every dictionary I visit the definition is the same, and I could not find anything to the contrary in the site Pro provided. Pro life is clearly referring to abortion, not capital punishment. If Pro is trying to argue that the definition does not, or should not mean what people think it does then his argument would still be irrelevant. This debate is clearly about the alleged disingenuousness of those that claim to be Pro life yet also Pro Capital Punishment. The level of disingenuousness of those that make these claims can only be judged by how they define Pro life, not how Pro defines it. It is clear that the vast majority of people believe this to be the definition when stating these positions.
Debate Round No. 2
logicrules

Pro

My opponent seems to prefer ad populem to reason. The idea that "people think it "means" something, is irrelevant. The fact that my opponent could not find something is again irrelevant. Ergo, discounting the ad populem as fallacious and my opponents inability to find as a mere statement of his work. We are left with the only objective standard, that of contradiction, stated in the paraphrase of perjury. Perhaps my opponent thinks we each should define all terms for ourselves? I also reject his source, Pro Life is two words, and no definition may contain the term being defined in same.
My opponent's "desire" that it were so, does not make it so. One is either for human Life as a Right, or thinks human life is a privilege granted by Law or society for which we should be thankful.

Those who support abortion because a fetus isn't human take a position not connected to pro life.
Double_R

Con

When questioning whether a person is genuine which was clearly Pros intent, you can only do so by understanding what they mean, not by attacking the technical definition of what they say. That is the only thing Pro tried to establish in round one, which still failed.


I am sorry Pro does not accept my dictionary definition of Pro Life. Every dictionary has the same definition. I would provide more if not for the 1,000 character limit Pro chose for this debate. Pro asserts that I think everybody should be able to define each term for themselves. No, that is why we have dictionaries, to ensure that we are all speaking the same language. Pro seems to be the one trying to change that.


“One is either for human Life as a Right, or thinks human life is a privilege granted by Law or society”


Since Pro Life refers to abortion, this stance is based on protecting the life of the innocent, not the guilty which capital punishment addresses. These positions are honest and not contradictory.
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
ReformedArsenal,

I understand that the debate is raging in the Christian world but I am simply stating that was not the debate here. If my opponent wanted to have that debate he should have stated "Pro-life should be applied to...", not "All who claim to be Pro life...". Since the resolution focuses on those who make the claim, the definition that society uses is the only one that can be applied.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Double_R,

It's not just a semantic debate, rather it is a debate (and one that is currently raging in the Christian world) to if you can actually be Pro-Life if you support various death inducing actions (war, euthanasia, capitol punishment, etc), in addition to not supporting other life inducing actions (various social justice concerns). It is a debate over the very concept of Pro-Life.

As I said, what Pro needed to show is that the term Pro-Life cannot responsibly be applied to persons who are only anti-abortion and not opposed to other life issues. He didn't do so... but that isn't to say that he couldn't have done so.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
I cannot imagine Pro winning this debate unless con forfieted. It's a good example of a resolution that shouldn't be taken unless you have superpower skills of debate, and your opponent is a slug.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
That argument would only work if it was a sizable majority, not a simple majority. But beyond that what your showing is an argument completely based on semantics. I don't think anyone would have accepted that because the resolution (not clarified in round 1) implied that the debate would focus on contradicting principles of the two positions. At least that is what I was ready for.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Double_R

The key argument that logicrules would have had to make is that there are enough people defining the word this way, that that definition should be used. While sometimes proving a simple majority is enough, sometimes it isn't. The argument would go something like this

A) If a majority of people use a word in X way, then X is the normative definition of that word.
B) The majority of people use "Pro-Life" to refer to issues beyond abortion, including capital punishment
C) Therefore the definition of "Pro-Life" includes capital punishment
D) Therefore to be genuinely "Pro-Life" includes being opposed to Capital Punishment
E) Therefore All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

The key would be proving "B" because all other propositions flow from common sense logic. I don't personally think you COULD prove B (Empirically the data probably isn't there, and I don't think it is true).

Alternately, you could replace "Majority" with "An Authoritative Source" in both A and B, which would be easier to prove. He attempted to do so with his link to ProLife.org, but didn't press that definition hard enough or prove that the website was a legitimate authority in defining the term.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
ReformedArsenal, you seem to forget the resolution: ALL who claim to be Pro Life... the ALL is obviously a key word. I had no intention of playing semantics and finding that one special exception, but certainly arguing that one group (Christians) is disingenuous if they make this claim would not have affirmed the resolution.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
I'm not sure 30 years is new.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You presumed that a site that is predominantly Atheist / Agnostic, would know what is going on in the Christian world, and in terms of a relatively new movement toward a "Consistently Pro Life Ethic?"

That's a pretty big assumption, and you lost the debate because it was faulty.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Reformed...I thought that would already be known by those on this site, in much the same way as in a discussion of algebra i would presume the the others to know basic math.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
@Logic,

Which is exactly WHY, you needed to bring in the fact that many Christians (the PRIMARY Pro-Life advocacy demographic) are redefining this term. Because then Pro-Lifers are defining what it means, just like the Catholic Church defines what Catholic means, and Progressives define what progressive means.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO never made adequate arguments and relied on semantics.
Vote Placed by gr33k_fr33k5 5 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
logicrulesDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: erm. . . isn't it obvious?
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is a good example of why definitions should be established in Round 1. As they were not, Con was within his rights to challenge Pro's definition with the far more accepted definition of Pro Life. He presented the only argument related to that term and its meaning.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry, Pro, but providing a definition for "pro life" is not an argument from the majority. Pro badly misconstrues "pro-life" too literally, when technically it refers in the debate over abortion specifically, and, as Con showed, therefore irrelevant in regards to "capital punishment".
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for unclear resolution, sources for abusive, incorrectly sources definition, arguments to Con as Pro screwed over the debate by using semantics.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
logicrulesDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: same reason as everyone else. double R did better. and I still dont understand the pro argument because killing a baby is one thing killing a murderer is more acceptable.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Citing a dictionary is ad populem? lol
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
logicrulesDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments while Pro indirectly attacked the phrase. Con also supplied outside, and cited, definitions.
Vote Placed by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
logicrulesDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments