The Instigator
Isap8
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
K.GKevinGeary
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Be it Resolved That Abortion Should Be Banned

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 4 votes the winner is...
Isap8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,233 times Debate No: 23540
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Isap8

Pro

The topic before the house today is be it resolved that abortion should be banned. We define abortion as the act of removal of the unborn fetus and banned as not allowing any person to have an abortion no matter the reason.

Today I shall be speaking to you on the topic of abortion and why it is so wrong and downright evil. I would like to start with a story.

You were once a child, were you not? You were once an egg. Then you were fertilized. You grew and became the person you are now. You could be the president, the doctor that saved a little girl's life or a famous banker. But what if your mother had an abortion? Where would you be? That's right. You WOULDN'T be. You'd be dead and nonexistent.

Today I will be speaking upon two points. One of which is the Right to Live point and the other of which is the Feticide point.

I'd like to move on to my first point. What did that child do to you in which the penalty was death? You may say it ruined your relationship. You may say it made you lose your job. But, in reality, that child had just as much right to live as you. That child wasn't a mistake. They may have been unplanned but they were just as human as you. They had a right to live, just as you had. Isn't it sad? Isn't it just awful that people are killing their own children just to make life a bit "easier" for them? There's no excuse. If you can't raise the child, put them up for adoption. Don't kill them.

Secondly, the act of abortion is feticide. In fact, it is also filicide, prolicide and (quite obviously) homocide. The child in question is being killed. It is being pulled from the uterus and disposed of. Some claim that the child was not yet alive as the child has not yet been born but I ask you, why not? Is it any less alive at nine months than eight? How about at five? Is there a magical day in which the child may be deemed alive? Technically, the child was always alive. The child would have been alive even from before fertilization. Even as an egg, it was alive. And the moment it is fertilized, the child is human. In fact, it was always human.

Filicide: "the deliberate act of a parent killing his or her own son or daughter."
Prolicide: "the act of killing one's own offspring."
Feticide: "an act that causes the death of a fetus."

Abortion falls under all three definitions. So why are those who preform abortions and those who have abortions not getting punishment? They are just as bad as some of the worst criminals. They are murderers.

But think of it this way. What did the Nazi's do? They killed people. How many people did they kill? Six million. But how many children die of abortion? Approximately 42 MILLION a year worldwide. This means that from now until 2015 (assuming that the rate will not INCREASE as it seems to be doing) one hundred twenty-six million children will be dead. In three short years, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX MILLION children will be MURDERED. I don't care if this is helping "keep down world population". We might as well be killing in MASSES the way the Nazis did! Is that not the same thing we are already doing?

And so I ask you. Why? Is it so necessary? Why do we need to kill off so many? There are so many other options. Adoption is a perfectly fine option. Or, better yet, if you have the ability to, why don't you just raise the child yourself?

For the reasons I have stated today, this resolution MUST and WILL stand for the sake of these 42 million children and the others that are yet to come.
K.GKevinGeary

Con

An abortion debate: rendering the clich�, I Accept. It is a fetus! It is not a fetus! Heak what is fetus.
"abortion and why it is so wrong and downright evil. I would like to start with a story."
The story is that morals have been philosophically debated for the span of human life basically. So what is evil to Y person might not be a common evil to X person.
1.e•vil/ˈēvəl/
Adjective:Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Noun:Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.

That is the dictionary. However what is immoral, how can one justify that with pure certainty? Nothing is known but something immoral can be probable amongst the human race.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"You were once a child, were you not? You were once an egg. Then you were fertilized. You grew and became the person you are now. You could be the president, the doctor that saved a little girl's life or a famous banker. But what if your mother had an abortion? Where would you be? That's right. You WOULDN'T be. You'd be dead and nonexistent."
What happens if this mother had the child (not an abortion) and that child was not a president of X country (rare), or a famous banker, or a doctor (both difficult to obtain). What would happen if that child became a criminal due environmental forces that can qualify as a mere release from X environment on that person who was rasided in it. What if and if and if and on can become of this person that wouldn't be.
How do I know that I am existing? Is it because I touch, feel, breath and can interpret something non existent? For all I know the earth could be purgatory (as defined in the Christian bible) and I am no higher being to tell you what is existing and what is not existing. Earth= purgatory fits the requirements, as long as X human is on planet earth and time keeps ticking, some form of disability or suffering will occur .
1.pur•ga•to•ry/ˈpərgəˌt�rē/
Noun:(in Roman Catholic doctrine) A place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going...

Adjective:Having the quality of cleansing or purifying.

A story: A man who thought he was a man by X meaning found out that X was a lie. In figuring out the lie a state of suffering, this man has become. How do I know I exist in what I think that I exist in?
Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions. Generally a person is more likely to turn out to be an average person when conceived, probally not the president. I do not stand fully with this thesis though I will bring it into the debate for its thesis on the this topic. The audience can be the judge.
http://www.freakonomics.com...
The story is lovely, and personally heart warming to read that people still care about other people. But wait? Is abortion impersonal and just businesslike. Take the bombing of Japan that was businesslike due to increased rationality. For the record it was to save lives. ( No only North American and coalition lives). Now is it to be defined that when a woman has an abortion it is just businesslike and committed to her lacking feeling towards the fetus, (or is it a fetus)?. Unless that woman is a sociopath then no. People who have had an abortion or lost a child through miscarriage are not commiting an abortion like a sociopath. There is a personal experience or connection generally, but the abortion is done with thinking, (hopefully). The Nazis killed businesslike. When on trial "I was just doing my job when I took my gun and pointed it at the inferiors". Again abortion is not businesslike.
About Half of the women that have had an abortion are under the age of 25. Take a 17 year old who does have a child in the ghetto. That is a child producing a child. That 17 year olds future that was already not in her favor is officialy not in her favor. (Future being going to school, focusing on the self to build the self to affect the other). Can a woman or a community help define what is best for the micro self or for that 17 year old child. Stop killing babies? Well if that baby is born that baby of a child as my example will probally have a difficult life, perhaps by having that baby she is already nonexistent (that being future of the self).
http://www.guttmacher.org...
"I don't care if this is helping "keep down world population". We might as well be killing in MASSES the way the Nazis did! Is that not the same thing we are already doing?"
A.It is keeping down the world population, which is a benefit. The U.S. is about 309 million people by 2050 that figure will jump to 450 million. U.S. people use a ton of resources. Perhaps the U.S. people who are using oil and blood money are debabtly a race of evil people. If the U.S. is a race of evil people, evil as in the definition, is it immoral to stuff the face with French fries and cry I am hungry after eating an hour ago. People in Liberia are starving, there is genocides that have occurred in Africa. By the out of Africa theory, the human race should help Africa. The U.S. stated that they will help those in need such as Libya. Well why doesn't the U.S. prevent Genreral Buttnacked from producing 10 9.11's.
B.Is killing immoral, a state in the U.S. cannot weigh has different degrees of the killing and cannot agree on the subject. Homicide, manslaughter, Murder, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . Justified killing protecting a Texas front lawn.
C."Abortion falls under all three definitions. So why are those who preform abortions and those who have abortions not getting punishment? They are just as bad as some of the worst criminals. They are murderers."
D. Are they really? A sister having an abortion is by far worst than the criminal who is sticking me up as I type on my computer. Then why has society not outlawed it? Why is it when they do there is such a roar from the community for and against the law? The guy sticking me up who looks to be about 30, I think knows better, at least he is letting me type my words until my clock runs out.
E.Abortions will still occur even outlawed and that crime would be life in prison for the most criminal of gully criminalies. Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life. What road am I on? Im going to roll a dice and find out, because it is never known. Locking her up when Brenda is capable of being a president, I personally would deem that a crime. Brenda by having the ability to choose when pro life and pro choice is pro choice, might be one helluva president, that is now with Crazy Slice the bandit in the dungeon. Well at least she is not talking to the rats, and Crazy Slice might help her understand her crime, what is the crime, and how her time should be done to benefit or not from the time to do nothing but stare at some nice walls, that get cleaned at "WAKE UP ITS 5 SCUMBAGS WHY ISNT YOUR BED MADE ALREADY".
F.Abortion is an emotional experience. To lock away someone because they could not take on the burden of having to care for another child can be a crime. Why is it that some people from a hood when in prison for crack distribution at 14, retain their innocence. Perhaps they were raised to fail and benefit the system of the U.S. that puts a profit on that 14 year olds head. That 14 year old was raised by criminals in an overindustrilized community not knowing what life is. A group that would be formally called GEO Group, a private prison company that is expanding. The more people locked up the more money for the ruling class. http://www.geogroup.com...
G.And so I ask you. Why? Is it so necessary? Why do we need to kill off so many? There are so many other options. Adoption is a perfectly fine option. Or, better yet, if you have the ability to, why don't you just raise the child yourself?

For the reasons I have stated today, this resolution MUST and WILL stand for the sake of these 42 million children and the others that are yet to come.
H.Well your asking me so I can not tell you if it is necessary or not. But will do my best to advocate for the sisters like you. IF more sisters sway the democratic community to the left or right, I will back that up. Locke defined a democracy to be likened to- Person A does not vote for Person As selfish motives, but votes for the common good or Person B and Person C. Locke impacted the founding fathers of the U.S. I can not raise a child and if I could become impregnated I would not have the child, for I have a life to live, and I am not betting on Person Z in caring for my child. My child will be a product of Dad. Not Dad (the other dad because I did not exist, for the childs best interest.) Well why did you have the child in the first place? Well technically I cannot get laid, and I am a 22 virgin who personally is lucky to be alive, and still does not understand the luck that got me to be typing on this computer. Personally I do not want to live as I am living, because my cost is outweighing the reward of living, but to end it in the moment of truth is heavy, so if it does happen I thought about it. For abortion it is thought about, in all types of minds. When I wake up I do recall someone on one special day- X told me "Stop complaining about this, what the F*** is wrong with you, you should not be here." Adoption is good idea, but sometimes adoption is not seen for some people. Remember people who have babies are all different types of people from different backgrounds. Some sisters do not have the luxury of typing on a computer to know what adoption is. I can even spell adoption.
I. I thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Isap8

Pro

A) "The story is that morals have been philosophically debated for the span of human life basically. So what is evil to Y person might not be a common evil to X person."

Are you now stating that morals are now so twisted that murder can be considered "moral" to certain persons and not to others? Do we live in such a world where murder can be justified as "moral" just because the person to be murdered was a "bother" to you? And what if the said person is innocent. This person has not even been born for crying out loud! So yes, I don't care who you are, murder is evil. I don't care if you find it evil, it is still murder. It is the end of another persons life.

B) "What happens if this mother had the child (not an abortion) and that child was not a president of X country (rare), or a famous banker, or a doctor (both difficult to obtain)."

Fine. What if they weren't? They're still a person. They still deserve to live whether they are a garbage man or the leader of the free world!

C) "What would happen if that child became a criminal due environmental forces that can qualify as a mere release from X environment on that person who was rasided in it."

Oh, so now you're stating that all 42 million children that die each year would've become criminals? Really? What happened to all those children before abortion existed?

And also, isn't the murder of 42 million children a year not form of murder as well? And is murder not a criminal offence? This means that the "doctors" that preform these abortions have just as much blood on their hands?

D) "How do I know that I am existing? Is it because I touch, feel, breath and can interpret something non existent? For all I know the earth could be purgatory (as defined in the Christian bible) and I am no higher being to tell you what is existing and what is not existing."

Okay, thanks. I get it. While we're at it, why don't we throw the ideas of Doctor Suess in here? Because for all we know, we could live on a speck of dust. Yeah, we could. It still doesn't matter whether we exist or whether this Earth is purgatory or not. Murder is still murder whether you are on Jupiter, Mars or this so called Purgatory Earth.

E) "Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions"

Oh, really? Okay. So now take the approximately 520,000 murders we have annually. Now, take the 42,000,000 murders we also have annually due to abortions. The people who preform these abortions (such as the "doctors") are in fact responsible for murder as well. And it gets worse. It's the murder of innocents. I don't care about stealing, murder is the ultimate crime. It's the removal of someone's life.

F) "The story is lovely, and personally heart warming to read that people still care about other people. But wait? Is abortion impersonal and just businesslike. Take the bombing of Japan that was businesslike due to increased rationality. For the record it was to save lives. ( No only North American and coalition lives). Now is it to be defined that when a woman has an abortion it is just businesslike and committed to her lacking feeling towards the fetus, (or is it a fetus)?. Unless that woman is a sociopath then no. People who have had an abortion or lost a child through miscarriage are not commiting an abortion like a sociopath. There is a personal experience or connection generally, but the abortion is done with thinking, (hopefully). The Nazis killed businesslike. When on trial "I was just doing my job when I took my gun and pointed it at the inferiors". Again abortion is not businesslike."

Correction: the "doctors" who preform abortions ARE business like. Do you think they actually CARE about the children they murder?

G) So now the unborn children have to pay for world population issues? Is that fair to them?

H) "Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life."

It's murder of innocents. I don't care if Brenda had a life ahead of her. She could put the child up for adoption if she needs to! And anyways, there are plenty of women out there having test-tube babies because they can't have their own while Brenda just killed off hers. A round of applause for Brenda, ladies and gentlemen, for being a selfish person who can't seem to see the fact that the child was human and that so many people want children and can't have them.

I) "Adoption is good idea, but sometimes adoption is not seen for some people. Remember people who have babies are all different types of people from different backgrounds. Some sisters do not have the luxury of typing on a computer to know what adoption is. I can even spell adoption."

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. I don't care if you're giving the child to your neighbor or to the state, adoption is better than murder.

J) Thank you for the debate as well.
K.GKevinGeary

Con

"Are you now stating that morals are now so twisted that murder can be considered "moral" to certain persons and not to others? Do we live in such a world where murder can be justified as "moral" just because the person to be murdered was a "bother" to you? And what if the said person is innocent. This person has not even been born for crying out loud! So yes, I don't care who you are, murder is evil. I don't care if you find it evil, it is still murder. It is the end of another persons life."

The clich� redundant arguments…

I am stating that everyone has different morals. In Texas murder can be justified under the castle law doctrine. Mr. Horn found someone to be a bother, and told the operator that he was going to kill the suspects. Mr. Horn was justified in the killing despite being told to stand down multiple times. For others U.S. soldiers who kill as their job, that is classified as murder. One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. Everyone has different standards.

For the world some places murder is commonly justifiable irrationally or rationally. Somalia the cot chewing child soldiers. Liberia. Iraq post Hussein… on and on around to developed nations.

The baby being aborted is not Satan, but who has the right to someone elses body? That would be slavery. So in my example of the individual without the silver spoon in the mouth who has an abortion for their safety, should be classified as a murderer, and be charged as one. Despite even if a law was in place. Abortion is going to happen, it will be unsafe. So by locking away all women who have had an abortion, that would be most likely negative in contemporary modern day society.

3:33 Joe Horn first video.
"Oh, so now you're stating that all 42 million children that die each year would've become criminals? Really? What happened to all those children before abortion existed?"

No I did not state that the 42 million children aborted would be criminals. I stated in the U.S. a lot of the abortions that occur are in places that the people have been drained of their livihood= scary places, where the child could live with the pidgeons where murder inc was born and not be a boxer, but an abandoned child to suffer and die. Having a child is a huge responsibility.

"In 2008, 84.3% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC)."

"Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions in 2008; women between 25-29 obtained 24% (CDC)."

"In 2008, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 821 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC)."

47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).

"Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI)."

"In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC)."

http://www.abort73.com...

I did not state 42 million children would be criminals. But many people who have had abortion, are not sociopaths out to spread the blood of the innocent, but do not have a silver spoon in their mouth. If I was to have child and could become impreganated. I would put the child for adoption. But I have the luxury to type on a computer, and know what that is. Now that is U.S. statistics.

"Women in certain countries, who have a child are putting themselves at risk. These countries are developing or underdeveloped countries."

"Nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and nearly all unsafe abortions (98%) occur in developing countries. In the developing world, 56% of all abortions are unsafe, compared with just 6% in the developed world."

"In 2008, more than 97% of abortions in Africa were unsafe. Southern Africa is the subregion with the lowest proportion of unsafe abortions (58%) [1]. Close to 90% of women in the subregion live in South Africa, where abortion was liberalized in 1997"
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Well personally I am not going to go to Africa as a honky and tell some lady who is suffering who is riskier her life to have an abortion for her better chance of survival that she is a mass murderer. So A. I did not state that they would be criminals, or presidents.

"Okay, thanks. I get it. While we're at it, why don't we throw the ideas of Doctor Suess in here? Because for all we know, we could live on a speck of dust. Yeah, we could. It still doesn't matter whether we exist or whether this Earth is purgatory or not. Murder is still murder whether you are on Jupiter, Mars or this so called Purgatory Earth."

Thanks for the compliment for doctor suess. At work I am called Kevin Querry by some older generations, so being called Suess, is complimenting.

Well that is just food for thought in my opening regarding what is existent and what is non existent. Murder is not murder for some folks. Murder is murder for some folks. Murder is when a soldier kills the enemy. Murder is when a person kills a baby. Murder is when an ant is killed. Murder is when I choose to be euthanized. What is murder as the common definition, that pushs the literary definition a bit harder for people? People are not robots, or maybe they are, who knows?

How can I know anything? How can anyone know anything? That is the road I think I am on.

Freakonomics highly controversial thesis= the crime rate dropped due to women having abortions"

"Oh, really? Okay. So now take the approximately 520,000 murders we have annually. Now, take the 42,000,000 murders we also have annually due to abortions. The people who preform these abortions (such as the "doctors") are in fact responsible for murder as well. And it gets worse. It's the murder of innocents. I don't care about stealing, murder is the ultimate crime. It's the removal of someone's life."

Why is the murder happening so much? In Africa why is a women going to risk her life to have an abortion when she most likely will die? The audience can deliberate that. The freaknomics thesis is again highly controversial, I personally do not agree with it 100 percent, but I just brought it into the debate for the audience, to take their stance. The women who is having an abortion in a developed contry such as the U.S. is not being sadistic. Not spreading the blood of the innocent. To compare the Nazis who rationalized the murder of inferiors due to increased rationality as C Wright Mills would argue, is a bit extreme. A war criminal "I was just doing my job". The U.S. dropping a bomb on Japan, was that justifiable? Perhaps justifiable as the Nazis justified the death of inferiors. The doctor is doing a job as well, but the mother who goes to the doctor who is the patient is not just like "hey I want to kill babies for fun, this is great". It is not impersonal for the mother. If I was doctor who performed the abortion, call me a war criminal, but take a look at the micro level of the mother, before you rationally kill me. I do not think the doctors are a group of sociopaths, but the audience can judge, as humans do.

Is it a crime to lock Brenda up if she would have an abortion, to seek the best road for her life."

"It's murder of innocents. I don't care if Brenda had a life ahead of her. She could put the child up for adoption if she needs to! And anyways, there are plenty of women out there having test-tube babies because they can't have their own while Brenda just killed off hers. A round of applause for Brenda, ladies and gentlemen, for being a selfish person who can't seem to see the fact that the child was human and that so many people want children and can't have them."

Brenda does not know her name. Does she know how to spell adoption like me then? If I got pregnant, I would be outcasted from my household due to my mothers Catholicness, and my own judgemnet if I aborted the child. But I have the luxury of the word adoption. I can see you do to. It is nice.

Does Mr. Shakur paint a picture of a sociopath mother? I do not agree with Mr. Shakur on how he decided to take the name of Machiavelli from the 1500's for all his ideals that stem, but I agree with the video for a humanistic U.S. stance on abortion.
"Adoption is ALWAYS an option. I don't care if you're giving the child to your neighbor or to the state, adoption is better than murder."

No Adoption is not always an option for every single woman on planet earth that is a fallacy to state over and over and over and over and over. Adoption for many is better than abortion, for many people.

Clich�= abortion debates, important, but the same arguments are made over and over and over and over for pro and con. Hopefully I did not present a clich� point of view for the audience or my opponent for the con side. Call me Zeuss if you want.

Pro did not resolve that abortion should be banned, but presented a fallacy that all women have this option of adoption.

Vote Con.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
1 dust pelts vote regarding the counter vote was due to him being a certified jerkoff. He voted due to me counter vote bombing the debate below due to the fella only talking about his x phone instead of leaving an rfd about the debate regarding x phone and y phone-hence he vote bombed in defense of his personal phone-nothing to due with the debate. The dude did not state that x phone was whatever from x debaters argument. The guy was like my x phone is great because i have x phone. It could be that x phone is better but that has nothing to do with the debate again. So the counter vote by dust pelt due to the emotional arguement vote was just to be a jerkoff. And my opponent was just emotional the whole debate. OMG babies dying, jesus will hate you...please wheres a source that women that have abortions are sociopaths bent on killing 42 million babies.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
A I will avoid the cliche arguments, basically i will try and stay away from it due to it being argued over and over agin.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Isap8K.GKevinGearyTied
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: counter vote below
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
Isap8K.GKevinGearyTied
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: Pro's arguments were 50 emotional appeals
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Isap8K.GKevinGearyTied
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: Pro mainly argued adoption is another option, which is not a argument to ban abortion. Hence con already wins. PRO also fails to prove a fetus is a human therefore it is murder. She fails on the point that needed to be addressed, and failed. CON wins.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Isap8K.GKevinGearyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I was going to give grammar to Con, since Pro's prose was irritatingly difficult to decipher. But Con was so much worse, sometimes incomprehensible, that the point goes to Pro. Pro's argument wasn't good enough to withstand a rebuttal, but Con's wall of un-punctuated prose did not seem to be on topic. What does his sister's computer have to do with this? Why is he saying the resolution should stand? Persuasion goes to Pro.