The Instigator
Sitar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Amedexyius
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Is elective abortion child abuse?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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...
Amedexyius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 93466
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Sitar

Pro

Elective abortion is any abortion done for reasons other than the mother's health, or if the baaaby will suffer anyway. I am moderate on abortion. Pro means yes, and Con means no. Happy debating.
Amedexyius

Con

I will be Con on your debate topic. I'll use Round 1 as my acceptance. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Sitar

Pro

Elective abortion is child abuse. Tearing babies to pieces iss child abuse. Babies have the right to live. Here are some pictures: http://shoebat.com...
Amedexyius

Con

Wow, let me just say that was incredibly disgusting and inappropriate. Please don't show that again.

If we're going to keep this argument short and simple, then you're entire argument is fallacious because a fetus is not a child.
A child is a minor human between the stages of birth and puberty [1]. Fetuses haven't been born.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...



Debate Round No. 2
Sitar

Pro

I have the right to present evidence to support my case. If you can't handle that, why are you here? If the picture bothers you that much, how much more so should abortion? Unborn children are being cut to pieces just like this baby in the picture. Letr the evidence speak for itself.
Amedexyius

Con

You do have the right to present evidence, that is true. Unfortunately, what you presented was not evidence, it was an image which showed a dead fetus.

That isn't evidence showing that it is child abuse, it is just a photo of a dead fetus.

The way that pigs and cows are killed is disturbing, but that doesn't mean that I'll become vegan. Elective abortion isn't child abuse as the fetus isn't a child (Refer to R2, Source 1).
Debate Round No. 3
Sitar

Pro

I have presented true evidence that abortion is child abuse. You have presented no evidence to support your opinion. Abortion is child abuse because it is wrong to cut unborn children to pieces.
Amedexyius

Con

I'm sorry to say that you haven't presented evidence. There is only one argument in this topic, and that is that a fetus is not a child. An abortion is the removal/extermination of a fetus from the womb.

I won't be going out of my way in this topic.
Debate Round No. 4
Sitar

Pro

I have presented evidence in my opening argument. That picture is proof that abortion is child abuse. It is child abuse to cut babies to pieces. It is you who has presented no evidence.
Amedexyius

Con

You presented an image of a fetus. The image does not even state whether the fetus was the product of an abortion.

Like I said, I won't be going out of my way to represent more reasoning to this argument when the topic is only whether elective abortion being child abuse. Since an abortion is the process of killing a fetus and a fetus is not a child (As I have proven, which my opponent did not refute), then my opponent's argument has been toppled.

Thanks (I guess?), for this debate. I hope other arguments that Pro makes in the future will be longer and built on stronger foundations. I wish her the best of luck in other debates she'll make.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: missmozart// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is sufficiently explained, analyzing each point awarded to a sufficient degree.

Note: With regards to sources, the voter does actually point to which point was supported by the source and give some explanation of why it is reliable. This is all that is required. With regards to S&G, even with this much explanation, this is borderline. It doesn't appear that the spelling mistakes cited impeded reading substantially, but since the rounds were short and since these were therefore a higher proportion of the overall words written, in this instance, it will be allowed.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro as I found the image to be quite appalling and highly inappropriate for DDO. Pro argued solely from an appeal to emotion and offered no other evidence. I am leaving the argument point null because I do not believe either side fulfilled their burden of proof. I could have award sources to con as shoebat is an extremist website and often posts fake news and fake articles. However, con only used wikipedia as a source. Had he used higher quality/non biased sources, I would have awarded him the source point.

[*Reason for removal*] For conduct only votes like this, a voter is allowed to award conduct with a brief explanation of why they chose not to award arguments. That explanation must contain some specific analysis of the arguments made by each side, which this lacks.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BackCommander// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro posted a photo he knew would make viewers uncomfortable, had it come into play more in his argument perhaps that would have been forgiven. As is, it loses him the conduct vote. Pro made almost no argument at all, Con correctly stated that a fetus is not a child. A much more convincing argument than a picture of a fetus and the blind dedication to claiming it is a child. Con's source isn't the most reliable source on the net, but seeing as how its a more reliable place to gather information than Pro's link to a photo, he gets the sources vote.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain why a source was reliable, and not merely state that it was, even if the other side presented no sources of note.
************************************************************************
Posted by missmozart 6 months ago
missmozart
-RFD-

Conduct goes to Con as Pro decided to show an unnecessary image which was both absolutely appalling and inappropriate, instead of providing an actual argument.

The s&g voting criteria is "which debater on balance took the time to ensure that their writing was easy to read with proper punctuation, spelling and grammar". I usually judge this in proportion to what the debater has written. For example, if the debater has written 4000 characters, then 3 or 4 mistakes is understandable. Con has barely (if any) mistakes at all. Pro on the other hand had 3 major spelling mistakes ("baaaby", "iss" and "letr"). Also, seeing as she wrote an average of four SENTENCES per round, it sort of bugged me. Therefore, "on balance", Con gets this point.

As for arguments, Pro's was basically non-existent. Showing an inappropriate picture and saying "let the evidence speak for itself" is not considered as 'convincing' in terms of debating. Con on the other hand proves that a foetus is not in fact a child. He successfully and cleverly negates the resolution without any rebuttals from Pro. Therefore, Con gets the argument points.

Finally, source points also go to Con seeing how his argument that a foetus was not a child was one of the main reasons of his win and well-supported by his cited source.
Posted by missmozart 6 months ago
missmozart
I thought I voted on this already.
Posted by Cartimandua 7 months ago
Cartimandua
Humans develop.
Elective abortions these days are vastly within the period when nature naturally "aborts".

Life from conception is a modern Catholic heresy which goes against even the churches traditions and the Bible.

Humans are supposed to have the potential for a rational mind.

Why don't the antis post the results of miscarriages... ah because they really hate and envy fertile women.
Even within their own terms antis make nothing better and they do deny women evidence based medical care.

Abortion is ALWAYS safer for the Mother than continuing a pregnancy.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sashil// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments).. Reasons for voting decision: PRO argued that selective abortion is child abuse since children are killed. CON countered this by pointing out the fact that foetuses are not children. PRO presented no other evidence and therefore weighing both sides I award argument points to CON.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the vote isn't particularly well explained, the voter does assess specific points made by both sides, and it's somewhat clear that there's an argument the voter is buying from one side that isn't countered by the other and subverts the other side's point. That is sufficient.
***********************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RonaldTrumpkin// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were fallacious and had terrible sources to back them up. Also did not demonstrate the ability to refute con or live up to the BOP.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does not explain conduct. (2) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by both debaters and use that assessment to explain the outcome, and sources must be based on the quality and reliability of the sources given by both sides, and not just a generalized assessment based on what the voter views as "terrible."
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
Fascinating. Does it also change the dictionary?
Posted by Sitar 7 months ago
Sitar
That image is proofff of the evil of abortion.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 5 months ago
BackCommander
SitarAmedexyiusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro posted a photo he knew would make viewers uncomfortable, had it come into play more in his argument perhaps that would have been forgiven. As is, it loses him the conduct vote. Pro made almost no argument at all, Con correctly stated that a fetus is not a child. A much more convincing argument than a picture of a fetus and the blind dedication to claiming it is a child. Con's source is more reliable because it contains words, rather than simply being a photo, like Pro's.
Vote Placed by missmozart 6 months ago
missmozart
SitarAmedexyiusTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Hayd 7 months ago
Hayd
SitarAmedexyiusTied
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 never presents an argument, all are bare assertions that lack reasoning to substantiate the claims. Why is tearing babies to pieces child abuse? Define child abuse and show me how it meets the qualificiations. Why do babies have the right to live? Explain, and pictures don't count as an argument. Con showed that by definition, a fetus is not a child, and thus it is impossible for something done to a fetus to qualify as child abuse. Pro drops this argument and instead focuses on the pictures for the rest of the debate. Thus, as Con's argument proved his side true and Pro didn't even attempt to negate it, and Pro never presented a real argument for the entire debate, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Sashil 7 months ago
Sashil
SitarAmedexyiusTied
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 argued that selective abortion is child abuse since children are killed. CON countered this by pointing out the fact that foetuses are not children. PRO presented no other evidence and therefore weighing both sides I award argument points to CON.