The Instigator
MTGandP
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Xer
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,306 times Debate No: 8807
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

MTGandP

Pro

I do not think that any definitions are necessary. To clarify, assume that the parents have some means of pre-assigning the sex of their child.

Although I am Pro, Con has the significant burden of proof: all else being equal, choices should be allowed. Con is arguing that the choice should not be allowed, so he or she must explain why.

Contention 1: Allowing parents to choose the sex of their child give the parents more options.
There are many scenarios in which parents prefer to have a choice. Say that parents already have four boys, and want a girl. Or say that they want their first child to be a boy. There is no sound reason to permit them from making this choice.
Xer

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate, and wish him good luck.
__________

"Although I am Pro, Con has the significant burden of proof"
---I do not see how I have a significant burden of proof. We are debating morality.

"Contention 1: Allowing parents to choose the sex of their child give the parents more options."
---Hitler said the same thing, except about a master race. Hitler believed his preference was better than others. I do not believe that Hitler is morally permissible.
__________

Contention 1: Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best. Hitler's beliefs are not morally permissible. Mass murder of humans (especially Jews) is not morally permissible.

Contention 2: Parents would undoubtedly choose boys, and this would lead to a gender imbalance. As a boy, I assume my opponent would agree that men are the dominant gender. They are harder, better, faster, stronger. Parents would undoubtedly prefer boys over girls. The gender imbalance would eventually lead to a world with no females. The human race would then become extinct. Extinction of humans for such a trivial issue is not morally permissible.
---See YouTube video on why men are better than women.

__________

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
MTGandP

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

"I do not see how I have a significant burden of proof. We are debating morality."
I explained this in round one. All else being equal, choice is morally permissible. My opponent must prove that in this case choice is NOT permissible.

"Hitler [wanted to give more options], except about a master race. Hitler believed his preference was better than others."
For the sake of argument, I will set aside the fact that my opponent has no evidence. This is an inappropriate analogy. Killing all not-Aryans is in no way analogous to choosing the gender of a child.

"I do not believe that Hitler is morally permissible."
This statement makes no sense. It's like saying that cabbage is morally permissible: it doesn't mean anything. A person or object cannot be morally permissible: only an action can be.

"Contention 1: Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best. Hitler's beliefs are not morally permissible. Mass murder of humans (especially Jews) is not morally permissible."
This is an unwarranted overgeneralization. He performed a few immoral actions and had a few immoral beliefs, but this does not mean that all his beliefs were immoral. For example, he probably believed that he was under seven feet tall. Was this an immoral belief? Hardly!

My opponent has not appropriately explained what he means by "Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best." I doubt that he believed that: if he wanted all non-Aryans to die, why would he want to allow people to choose that their children be Aryan or non-Aryan?

"Contention 2: Parents would undoubtedly choose boys, and this would lead to a gender imbalance."
My opponent has not provided any evidence to support this unreasonable claim. His claim seems to be based on the idea that males are dominant; however, this has several flaws.

1. The idea that males are dominant is an outdated one. In modern society, males and females are close to equal, and indeed, females hold certain advantages.
2. There exists a wide variety of parents, and they will want a wide variety of children. Many parents will want females, and many others will want males.
3. My opponent's argument still relies on the idea that it is better to have a child of the dominant sex. Though many parents will feel that way, many more will not, and will choose gender off of other factors.

"They are harder, better, faster, stronger."
Other than the fact that that's a song, it's not necessarily true, and also fails to take into account other possible traits: to truly be preferable, men would have to be harder, better, faster, stronger, smarter, quicker, wiser, funnier, prettier, sexier, longer and happier, to name a few.

"The gender imbalance would eventually lead to a world with no females."
In addition to what has been said, this is still flawed.

1. When females begin to become rare, many parents will begin to prefer females, as they will be unique and special. Every parent wants their child to be "special", right?
2. Mothers would begin to prefer daughters, and since the mother gets the absolute decision, more females would begin to surface.
3. A gender imbalance would remain fairly minor, and if it did, it would serve as a control for the population. The world of today is overpopulated, and an increase in men and decrease in women would help to regulate it.

"---See YouTube video on why men are better than women."
This video portrays a man who is clearly supposed to be seen as crazy. It follows that society in general views men and women as equal, and does not share this man's ideals. This supports the affirmation.

***

My opponent did not use the arguments that I anticipated; things turned out to be rather interesting. I certainly look forward to my opponent's response!
Xer

Con

"I explained this in round one. All else being equal, choice is morally permissible. My opponent must prove that in this case choice is NOT permissible."
---Who says choice is morally permissible. If I make a choice to kill someone instead of shaking their hand, is that morally permissible? We have the same burden of proof.

"For the sake of argument, I will set aside the fact that my opponent has no evidence. This is an inappropriate analogy. Killing all not-Aryans is in no way analogous to choosing the gender of a child."
---Here is the evidence that Hitler wanted a master race:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
---I disagree and think that analogy is appropriate. An all male master race is the same as an all aryan master race. It is extremely prejudiced and not morally permissible.

"This statement makes no sense. It's like saying that cabbage is morally permissible: it doesn't mean anything. A person or object cannot be morally permissible: only an action can be."
---Apparently, my opponent can not use context clues. I'm pretty sure that my opponent knew that I meant that "Hitler's actions (as in creating a master race) are not morally permissible."

====================

"This is an unwarranted overgeneralization. He performed a few immoral actions and had a few immoral beliefs, but this does not mean that all his beliefs were immoral. For example, he probably believed that he was under seven feet tall. Was this an immoral belief? Hardly!"
---You couldn't tell that I meant Hitler's belief of a master race is not morally permissible? Way to avoid the main point.

"My opponent has not appropriately explained what he means by "Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best." I doubt that he believed that: if he wanted all non-Aryans to die, why would he want to allow people to choose that their children be Aryan or non-Aryan?"
---Hitler believed that his choice/preference of race was best. Pretty simple concept. You made a straw man argument by saying that he wanted parents to choose. I never said that.

"1. The idea that males are dominant is an outdated one. In modern society, males and females are close to equal, and indeed, females hold certain advantages."
---Like what advantages?

"2. There exists a wide variety of parents, and they will want a wide variety of children. Many parents will want females, and many others will want males."
---The parents want to survive, and they want their children to thrive. According to "Survival of the Fittest" (1) parents would want boys. Since boys tend to be the strongest and fittest.

"3. My opponent's argument still relies on the idea that it is better to have a child of the dominant sex. Though many parents will feel that way, many more will not, and will choose gender off of other factors."
---Like what other factors?

"Other than the fact that that's a song..."
---Lol.

"it's not necessarily true, and also fails to take into account other possible traits: to truly be preferable, men would have to be harder, better, faster, stronger, smarter, quicker, wiser, funnier, prettier, sexier, longer and happier, to name a few."
---Men are faster and stronger than women based on the numerous world records and competetions. Men almost always beat women.
---Men are smarter than women according to scientists. (2)
---Quicker is the same as faster. Go to almost any competetition and you will see that men are faster/quicker.
---Wiser is the same as smarter. See above. Men are wiser.
---Men are funnier than women according to scientists. (3)
---Sexier? How can this possibly change based on gender? Please explain.
---Longer? Thanks for proving my point. Men are longer (taller?) than women. (4)
---Happier? How can this possibly change based on gender? Please explain.

"1. When females begin to become rare, many parents will begin to prefer females, as they will be unique and special. Every parent wants their child to be "special", right?"
---Most parents want their children to fit in. And if there is a 9-1 male-female ratio than this would surely lead to their daughter getting raped. Parents would not want this.

"2. Mothers would begin to prefer daughters, and since the mother gets the absolute decision, more females would begin to surface."
---Why would mothers want their daughters to get raped? And it is a parental decision, not a mother decision.

"3. A gender imbalance would remain fairly minor, and if it did, it would serve as a control for the population. The world of today is overpopulated, and an increase in men and decrease in women would help to regulate it."
---The world of today is underpopulated according to my sources. (5) (6) (7)

"This video portrays a man who is clearly supposed to be seen as crazy."
---I do not see the craziness in the man.

"It follows that society in general views men and women as equal, and does not share this man's ideals. This supports the affirmation."
---The man shows how men are better than women, without anyone attempting to refute him. This supports the negation, not the affirmation.

====================

Contention 3: Sex selection will bring back gender stereotypes. Society (in the U.S.) has been mostly ridden of gender stereotypes, but sex selection will bring them back. My making sex selection legal, gender stereotypes will come back. In China and other cultures where males are already seen as dominant, this would further increase the stereotype.

Contention 4: Sex selection makes love for children conditional. Parents should love their children unconditionally, otherwise, the children will believe that they will always have to meet their parent's expectations.

Contention 5: Sex selection would put a great burden on children. For example, a father wanting a boy, so he becomes a star quarterback; but the boy is interested in legos instead. This is unfair to the boy.

Contention 6: Sex selection is the first step on a slippery slope to "designer babies." (8) If we first allow parents to choose the sex of their child, they will soon want to choose the hair color, eye color, height, and weight. This creates a false perception of "perfect." This is exactly what Hitler wanted- a master race.

Contention 7: The process of the birth of child is supposed to be beautiful and precious, not like picking a couch out of a catalog. The birth of child should not be like ordering out of a catalog.

====================

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

====================

---Sources---
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.livescience.com...
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(4) http://www.abc.net.au...
(5) http://www.metafuture.org...
(6) http://findarticles.com...
(7) http://illinoisreview.typepad.com...
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MTGandP

Pro

"Who says choice is morally permissible. If I make a choice to kill someone instead of shaking their hand, is that morally permissible? We have the same burden of proof."
That analogy is an improper one. Unless it is already proven that killing is bad, that choice is morally permissible. But since it has been proven that killing is bad, the choice ceases to be permissible. Choice is, by default, morally permissible because people deserve freedom of choice. A restriction of choice is a violation of fundamental liberties, and therefore must be justified.

"Here is the evidence that Hitler wanted a master race"
That is not what my opponent originally said. What he said was "Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best." This claim has no evidence to support it.

"I disagree and think that analogy is appropriate. An all male master race is the same as an all aryan master race. It is extremely prejudiced and not morally permissible."
My opponent has changed the meaning of the analogy. Originally it applied to choosing a child's sex or race, but now it applies to creating a master sex/race? Anyway, it is still inapplicable. Allowing parents to choose the sex of their child is nothing like creating a master race of men. The differences should be obvious.

"Apparently, my opponent can not use context clues."
My opponent seemed to imply that everything Hitler did was immoral, which is obviously false. For his point to be sound, it must be true that everything Hitler did was immoral, and it is not true.

"You couldn't tell that I meant Hitler's belief of a master race is not morally permissible? Way to avoid the main point."
What main point? I see no point other than the one I refuted.

"Hitler believed that his choice/preference of race was best."
And forcing everyone to choose Hitler's race of preference is vastly different from ALLOWING PARENTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

"Like what advantages [do females hold]?"
-They can have children.
-They are seen by many as 'nicer' than males.
-They have more developed immune systems [5], which in crowded cities is the single most important survival trait [6].
The list goes on. See [3], [4].

"[B]oys tend to be the strongest and fittest."
Wrong. Females have various advantages, in particular their immune system (see above).

"Like what other factors [would parents use to choose a gender]?"
I have explained many possible factors in my arguments so far. My opponent has only explained one that I can find: that men do better in athletics. And why would parents care about athletics?

"Men are smarter than women according to scientists. (2)"
Wrong. (2) is flawed: SATs are not intelligence tests, they are aptitude tests; women tend to underplay their abilities [2]; women are sometimes not as good at left-brained activities, while better at right-brained ones [7], [8]. However, [1] and [2] reference studies showing that men and women are about equal in intelligence according to the best contemporary measurement tools.

"Wiser is the same as smarter."
This could not be farther from the truth. Wisdom: accumulated philosophic or scientific learning. Intelligence: the skilled use of reason. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

"Sexier? How can this possibly change based on gender?"
Males think that females are sexier. In the case of males being more populous, males will want female children.

What (3) really says is that men make more jokes. The author of the article skewed the scientist's study to make it seem like men were funnier.

"Longer?"
I was referring to the length of the uterus. The female uterus is longer [9].

"Happier?"
If men are happier, they will have that slight advantage over women. If not, they won't.

"Most parents want their children to fit in."
Indeed. But being special is also very important. They are not mutually exclusive. Even if females become rare, there is no reason to believe that they will not fit in.

"Why would mothers want their daughters to get raped?"
My opponent is leaping to conclusions. And if rape really does become commonplace, why would mothers want rapist sons? A child who gets raped is better than a child who rapes, since there is nothing morally reprehensible about getting raped.

(5) (6) (7) speak of population reduction. But for the world to truly be underpopulated, there would have to be fewer than one person per square mile of arable land [6], which is a vast reduction in population [10]. Plus, how do we know we can trust my opponent's sources? I searched Google Scholar for scientific papers on potential future underpopulation, and got no relevant results. However, I found numerous articles about the dangers of overpopulation, notably [18], [11], [16], [17]. Papers found on Google Scholar are far more reliable than those found on the general internet.

"I do not see the craziness in the man [in the video]."
Regardless of what my opponent sees, if the reader determines that the man is not fully sane, it supports Pro. If not, it supports Con. I leave the choice to the reader.

"The man shows how men are better than women, without anyone attempting to refute him."
No refutation is necessary, as his arguments are so utterly ridiculous.

My opponent's contentions 3 and 4 are unsupported.

"Sex selection would put a great burden on children. For example, a father wanting a boy, so he becomes a star quarterback; but the boy is interested in legos instead."
A father is just as likely to demand that his son become a star quarterback if he gets the son by chance. If his child turned out female, there would be different expectations (such as becoming star cheerleader).

"Sex selection is the first step on a slippery slope to 'designer babies.'"
This is, interestingly enough, known as the slippery slope fallacy, and is invalid. [12], [13], [14], [15]

"The process of the birth of child is supposed to be beautiful and precious, not like picking a couch out of a catalog."
1. It's not "supposed to be" anything. It is a tool of natural selection.
2. If parents want it to be "beautiful and precious", they may choose to have a child the traditional way. But we should not force all parents to choose the "beautiful and precious" route.
3. There is no evidence that choosing a child's gender in any way inhibits the beauty of childbirth.

========

[1] http://www.trumpuniversity.com...
[2] http://www.newsweek.com...
[3] http://registeredrep.com...
[4] http://peoplerelationships.syl.com...
[5] http://www.ctv.ca...
[6] Guns, Germs and Steel, winner of the Pulitzer Prize http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] A Whole New Mind http://www.danpink.com...
[8] http://www.thirdage.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://www.catsg.org...
[11] http://www.popline.org...
[12] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[14] http://www.nizkor.org...
[15] http://www.jstor.org...
[16] http://www.bodhi.net.au...
[17] http://db.jhuccp.org...
[18] http://books.google.com...
Xer

Con

MTGandP--- in your first 5 paragraphs in Round 3, you avoided my points in Round 2, and refuted my points in Round 1. If you feel as though, you want to let my points from Round 2 stand, that is fine with me.

====================

"And forcing everyone to choose Hitler's race of preference is vastly different from ALLOWING PARENTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES."
---It still creates a master race (gender), so it is not different at all.

I'll leave the whole debate about men vs. women and overpopulation vs. underpopulation where they are right now. They are not that relevant to the debate, and I will let the voters decide that issue.

"My opponent's contentions 3 and 4 are unsupported."
---They don't have to be supported. We are debating morality. These contentions stand.

"A father is just as likely to demand that his son become a star quarterback if he gets the son by chance. If his child turned out female, there would be different expectations (such as becoming star cheerleader)."
---Exactly. So you concede it is unfair to put an unfair burden on children. And these burdens would become stronger with sex selection.

"This is, interestingly enough, known as the slippery slope fallacy, and is invalid."
---My sources say otherwise. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
---The slipper slope fallacy is clearly valid to some, and invalid to others. For this reason, you have to refute my slippery slope argument or it will stand.

"1. It's not "supposed to be" anything. It is a tool of natural selection."
---This does not refute my point.

"2. If parents want it to be "beautiful and precious", they may choose to have a child the traditional way. But we should not force all parents to choose the "beautiful and precious" route."
---And we should not force children to be a gender they did not choose. Birth is a natural process, not a mechanical process.

"3. There is no evidence that choosing a child's gender in any way inhibits the beauty of childbirth."
---So what? There is no evidence that Megan Fox is hot. But people believe it anyway. Just because there is no concrete evidence, does not mean it is not true.

-----Sources-----
(1) http://www.infidels.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.csun.edu...
(4) http://www.analphilosopher.com...
(5) http://keithdevens.com...
(6) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
(7) http://www.kspope.com...
Debate Round No. 3
MTGandP

Pro

"MTGandP--- in your first 5 paragraphs in Round 3, you avoided my points in Round 2, and refuted my points in Round 1. If you feel as though, you want to let my points from Round 2 stand, that is fine with me."
Let's look at what I did in round 3.
-I quoted and rebutted many of my opponent's round 2 arguments.
-I reiterated arguments I made in round 2 that my opponent did not properly rebut.
-I rebutted my opponent's new contentions.
I wouldn't call that avoidance.

"It still creates a master race (gender)."
No it doesn't. I have already refuted this. There is no more I can say.

"I'll leave the whole debate about men vs. women and overpopulation vs. underpopulation where they are right now."
Fair enough. I will also drop that issue. However, I would like to point out that it would be dishonest and unfair of my opponent to provide new arguments about overpopulation vs. underpopulation in round 4, as I will have no opportunity to respond.

"[My contentions 3 and 4] don't have to be supported. We are debating morality. These contentions stand."
They don't have to be supported by evidence, but they should at least be supported by logic. My opponent has provided no logic; he has only made outlandish claims without any support for them. I could just as easily claim "When parents are allowed to choose the sex of their child, the world becomes a magical utopia where everything is perfect." His third and fourth contentions are to be ignored. If they are not accepted as true, then my sentence about magical utopias must also be accepted as true.

"So you concede it is unfair to put an unfair burden on children. And these burdens would become stronger with sex selection."
The first sentence is correct by definition. The second sentence is not only unsupported, but I refuted it: "A father is just as likely to demand that his son become a star quarterback if he gets the son by chance. If his child turned out female, there would be different expectations (such as becoming star cheerleader)."

My opponent claims that the slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy. However, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) ALL explain why it is fallacious and therefore invalid. My opponent claims that it is valid, despite the fact that all of his sources explain its invalidity. He has therefore refuted himself. Any reader who wants to know more about the slippery slope fallacy should read one of the numerous sources posted by one of us (I recommend [1] or [2]), and will then see why my opponent's sixth contention does not stand.

However, if my opponent insists, I will give an explanation.

From [3]:

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.


"[W]e should not force children to be a gender they did not choose."
Then we should not have children at all. When a child's gender is randomly selected by nature, it is no more the child's choice than when a parent chooses it. The child loses no freedoms whatsoever by having a parent choose his/her gender as opposed to the gender being selected randomly.

"So what? There is no evidence that Megan Fox is hot. But people believe it anyway. Just because there is no concrete evidence, does not mean it is not true."
Let's look at what my opponent just said here. He said that sometimes people believe things without evidence. Therefore, we should believe his claim that "choosing a child's gender inhibits the beauty of childbirth" without any evidence. My opponent actually stated that we should accept his claim without any evidence whatsoever. Look at the sheer ridiculousness of that claim. And I'm not just talking about empirical evidence. He also has not provided any logical foundations to his argument; in essence, you as the reader have absolutely no reason to believe that it's true.

========

My opponent's contentions have been refuted. His attempts to refute my own arguments have been adequately halted, and my arguments stand. The choice is clear. Vote Pro!

[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.nizkor.org...
Xer

Con

"-I quoted and rebutted many of my opponent's round 2 arguments.
-I reiterated arguments I made in round 2 that my opponent did not properly rebut.
-I rebutted my opponent's new contentions.
I wouldn't call that avoidance."
---You quoted me, only to say that I didn't say that in Round 1. So you didn't rebut my Rd.2 arguments.

"They don't have to be supported by evidence, but they should at least be supported by logic. My opponent has provided no logic; he has only made outlandish claims without any support for them. I could just as easily claim "When parents are allowed to choose the sex of their child, the world becomes a magical utopia where everything is perfect." His third and fourth contentions are to be ignored. If they are not accepted as true, then my sentence about magical utopias must also be accepted as true."
---My contentions make sense and are historically relevant. Your magical utopia is not. My contentions stand.

"The second sentence is not only unsupported, but I refuted it"
---The burden would become stronger because the father expects his child to become a star quarterback, because he knows his son will be a boy. If he didn't know his son was a boy, he would not place a burden.

-------The whole slippery slope thing has gone out of control. The voters can decide.

"Then we should not have children at all. When a child's gender is randomly selected by nature, it is no more the child's choice than when a parent chooses it. The child loses no freedoms whatsoever by having a parent choose his/her gender as opposed to the gender being selected randomly."
---But now the parents take away even more freedom, by having their own choice. Nature should be the selector, not parents.

=============

My opponent has provided 1 contention, which has been refuted. I have provided 7 contentions, which the voters can decide if they have been refuted or not. The choice is clear. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
I don't know why I went Con on this debate. I definetely agree with Pro.

I think I just took it because I usually never take "morally acceptable" debates and wanted to play devil's advocate.

Ehh.. I guess I got pwned though. Good job MTGandP.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
This is interesting. Both Pro and Con have been vote bombed.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Conduct: Tied
S & G: Tied
Argument: PRO; CON originally had my vote, because I had just come off of reading an article on China's flirtation with male-inclined family bias in their one-child policy. But, after reading through the debate, PRO proved that the choice was indeed "morally permissible" - not that it is a choice that would particularly benefit society, but that the choice is permissible under Western society's moral standards.
Sources: PRO; PRO had more sources than CON, and thus won this point.

Good debate, to both of you!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
lol at the R1 youtube vid.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Lifeisgood, I thought it clear enough that I had won all the points that Nags conceded.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
I must say Nags, I hate it when you say things like: "This has gone out of control. Let the voters decide." The real answer is that you have no comeback. It is so frustrating, because you concede a point in a manner that makes you look like you won it. And worst of all, it works!

Just an annoying thing.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Oh, and Pro also referenced two books (one of which won the Pulitzer Prize) and at least one scholarly article.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"The whole slippery slope thing has gone out of control."
I guess talking about slippery slopes is a slippery slope. XD

"Don't just give 7 points either way."
I second that.

RFD:
B/A: PRO, PRO

Conduct: PRO. Con ignored many of Pro's arguments, and repeatedly failed to produce evidence.
S&G: TIE.
Arguments: PRO. Pro adequately refuted Con's contentions.
Sources: PRO. Con had seven sources that were all the same. Pro did have a few duplicate sources, but he had a wider variety of sources overall.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Post RFDs!!! Don't just give 7 points either way.

My RFD:
B/A - Con/Con
Conduct - Tied
S&G - Tied
Arguments - Con
Sources - Tied
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
B/A - TIED/PRO
Conduct - PRO
CON's general ignorance to a lack of evidence in his own arguments was annoying, as well as his constant request to drop an argument to the voters immediately.
"-------The whole slippery slope thing has gone out of control. The voters can decide."
Out of control? He just didn't have a counter-argument.
Spelling/Grammar - PRO
CON didn't substitute his ""s with 's. I hate that. CON also had poor ending punctuation and comma placement.
Arguments - PRO
CON dropped most of his arguments, and his contentions just didn't hold water.
Sources - PRO
PRO used 18 sources in one round. CON used seven sources to back up one fallacy that turned against him.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
MTGandPXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
MTGandPXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
MTGandPXerTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
MTGandPXerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
MTGandPXerTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
MTGandPXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
MTGandPXerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70