The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EnchantedPlatinum
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

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 1 vote the winner is...
EnchantedPlatinum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 103414
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

IS SELECTIVE BABY-KILLING WRONG?
Many babies are killed in the womb
because of age bias or gender bias.
Make every day International Women's Day:
stop killing unborn women
based on age bias and personal convenience.
Protect women and girls of all ages.
Babies have the same unique personal characteristics we have:
Fingerprints, DNA, virtues and flaws,
thoughts, pains and pleasures, emotions, and gender.
https://www.youtube.com...
EnchantedPlatinum

Con

The titular question is, in itself a moral quandary and therefore not grounds for a factual debate. I, as the con side shall instead argue to prove that the points provided by my opponent are invalid, inaccurate or inapplicable to support their side.

First off, there is a blatant confusion between Female Feticide and Abortion in general. The former is performed for a very particular reason and has strong ties to "India and China" according to my opponent's provided document. Though I make no claim as to the accuracy of the aforementioned, we can safely assume my opponent operates under such beliefs. The latter is a medical term applying to a variety of situations globally. Thus, conflating the two topics is intellectually dishonest and I ask my opponent to modify or clarify their argument going forward.

Secondly, I claim that my opponent uses manipulative language to artificially strengthen the Pro side's case. Instead of using the scientific and proper terminology that applies to abortive scenarios and Female Feticide scenarios, the general word "Baby" is used. I would like to clarify here that "Feticide" only occurs pre-birth and according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, a "Baby" can both refer to born and unborn animals. https://www.merriam-webster.com... .
My claim is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent has not referred to the topic of argument as "Female Feticide", though the provided source makes use of this terminology. With this, I believe I have made a strong case proving my opponent is using manipulative language.

Thirdly, I would like scholarly sources stating that pre-birth humans have "Fingerprints", "Virtues", "Flaws", "Thoughts", and "Emotions". If such sources were to be provided, I would rest my tertiary point but for the time being it shall stay.

Thank you for reading my argument, I look forward toward your round two argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"The titular question is, in itself a moral quandary and therefore not grounds for a factual debate."

...and yet you are (supposedly) debating it.

"Though I make no claim as to the accuracy of the aforementioned, we can safely assume my opponent operates under such beliefs."

No you can't.

"Thus, conflating the two topics is intellectually dishonest and I ask my opponent to modify or clarify their argument going forward."

I didn't conflate the two topics. Also, I am only one person, so who is this plural "their" to whom you referred?

"the general word "Baby" is used."

That is not a problem, though, because the victims in question are human babies.

You lost the debate because you failed to provide evidence that female feticide is not morally wrong, and also failed to provide evidence that abortion in general is not morally wrong: Thanks for your time! =)
EnchantedPlatinum

Con

Thank you for responding so quickly. Since my opponent's second round was spent addressing points within my first round argument, I shall respond individually to each counterpoint provided.

First off, I made sure to clarify that instead of arguing a moral quandary, I will be using a debate format to disagree and disvalue arguments made by my opponent. This statement is clear and apparent within my round one post.

Secondly, I am allowed to assume my opponent operates under the beliefs expressed in the document they provided with their round one post. This is only fair, as there was no explanation nor any details added after the link to the aforementioned.

Third, I would like to see a detailed explanation as to how my opponent is not conflating "Female Feticide" with "Abortion". Within the response, I saw no argument except a disagreement, which I will not accept as a legitimate counterpoint.

As an addendum, I am referring to my opponent as "them" since I am making my case to the audience who hall vote on the issue, rather than to my opponent themselves.

Fourth, the issue with my opponent's usage of Baby comes not from inaccuracy of the terminology but the dishonesty I have blatantly demonstrated considering the manipulative manner in which it is used.

Regarding my opponent's final statement, I will restate that I am simply disproving and discrediting my opponent's evidence rather than arguing a moral query. Also, I would like to point out to my opponent that the audience shall cast their vote after the third round of argument, and that my opponent's view regarding my argument's validity carries no weight.

Finally, I would like to address the fact that my opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, took quotes out of context, and in general avoided responding to a point with evidence or reason by restating a few points unaddressed by my opponent.

"Thirdly, I would like scholarly sources stating that pre-birth humans have "Fingerprints", "Virtues", "Flaws", "Thoughts", and "Emotions". If such sources were to be provided, I would rest my tertiary point but for the time being it shall stay."

"Thus, conflating the two topics is intellectually dishonest and I ask my opponent to modify or clarify their argument going forward."

"My claim is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent has not referred to the topic of argument as "Female Feticide", though the provided source makes use of this terminology. With this, I believe I have made a strong case proving my opponent is using manipulative language."

Thank you for reading my second argument, I look forward to the third and final round. I sincerely hope my opponent responds as soon as they had during round two.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Secondly, I am allowed to assume my opponent operates under the beliefs expressed in the document they provided with their round one post."

No you aren't.

"Third, I would like to see a detailed explanation as to how my opponent is not conflating "Female Feticide" with "Abortion""

I am not conflating. My main points are directed at female feticide, not at abortion in general. We can start with female feticide and leave abortion in general to a secondary discussion, if you like -- thus there is no conflation. Also, in your entire post, I saw no argument except a disagreement to my OP, which I will not accept as a legitimate argument.

"I am referring to my opponent as "them" since I am making my case to the audience who hall vote on the issue, rather than to my opponent themselves."

Your opponent is singular (one person), but the words "them," "their," and "themselves" are plural. That is incorrect grammar and is therefore unclear language. Thank you, at the very least, for not using the doubly ignorant and nonexistent word "themself" to refer to me.

Please refer to me correctly -- by singular terms -- from now on, because I am not a plural group of persons.

"Fourth, the issue with my opponent's usage of Baby comes not from inaccuracy of the terminology but the dishonesty I have blatantly demonstrated"

Yes, you have indeed blatantly demonstrated dishonesty, but not on my part -- the blatant dishonesty is yours and yours alone. This debate is about babies (specifically about baby girls), and if you don't like that, then you have chosen the wrong debate in which to engage. You are free to concede defeat and withdraw from this debate about baby girls, but the debate subject is baby girls, and it shall remain steadfastly on the subject of baby girls until its conclusion.

"Regarding my opponent's final statement, I will restate that I am simply disproving and discrediting my opponent's evidence"

No you aren't. Also, your opinion on my argument's validity carries no weight.

"Finally, I would like to address the fact that my opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, took quotes out of context, and in general avoided responding to a point with evidence or reason by restating a few points unaddressed by my opponent."

No I didn't.

" I sincerely hope my opponent responds as soon as they had during round two."

Who are "they???"

You only have one opponent in this debate, not a multitude of opponents. You need to stop referring to me by use of a plural term because doing so is incorrect grammar and is therefore unclear. You do not refer to yourself as "we," and nor do I refer to you as "you guys:" Make sure that you also refer to me using singular terminology only, from now on, because I am only one person, not a group of persons. Thank you very much.
EnchantedPlatinum

Con

To open my final argument, I would like to respond to my opponent's main concern regarding my usage of "they/them" to refer to a singular entity.

According to Oxford Dictionaries: "Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it"s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn"t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It"s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing." at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

I will reinforce that I am absolutely able to assume my opponent's views based on the documents provided since those documents were submitted without afternote or addendum in my opponent's first round argument.

I would also like to remind the public and my opponent that the titular question states that Abortion is to be proven "wrong" as extension to Female Feticide, though the two concepts are completely separate and operate under both different definitions and circumstances. Clearly, implying that proving Female Feticide wrong will prove Abortion wrong by extension is conflating two subjects as it implies the two are relatively similar.

My opponent claims this debate is "about baby girls" however "baby" encompasses both animals that are born and unborn. Since born children are not aborted, and are no longer fetuses, the word baby cannot be applied to Feticide.
As an addendum, my opponent's statement that this debate is "specifically about baby girls" again shows how Abortion - a non gender specific operation - can only be proven wrong by extension of Female Feticide by conflating the two terms to at least some degree.

I cannot address my opponent's response to my clarification of my position since they provided no material to argue.

Neither can I address the following response much due to the same reason.

Thank you for reading my third round argument, this was a fun debate and I hope both the audience and my opponent enjoyed it as much as I did.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
I assumed that he was referring to this exchange:

"Someone wrote:

"@Purushadasa You need to specify what you consider to be "alive" and when you consider the fetus to be "alive"."

What do you mean by "specify?"

"Atheists. Just a bunch of baby-killers, right?"

Yes, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!

"Knock off the passive-aggressive attitude"

Without God, being passive-aggressive couldn't be objectively wrong."

...but he may have been referring to something else.
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 11 months ago
EnchantedPlatinum
Could you quote the counter-back? I don't know which round you are talking about.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Ok. I know purushadasa is irritating but I have to say that the last counter-back made me smile. That sharp tongue got sharpened.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"@Purushadasa You need to specify what you consider to be "alive" and when you consider the fetus to be "alive"."

What do you mean by "specify?"

"Atheists. Just a bunch of baby-killers, right?"

Yes, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!

"Knock off the passive-aggressive attitude"

Without God, being passive-aggressive couldn't be objectively wrong.
Posted by Bluepaintcan123 11 months ago
Bluepaintcan123
@Purushadasa You need to specify what you consider to be "alive" and when you consider the fetus to be "alive". Otherwise no one will debate you because you can just arbitrarily shut down their arguments.
(Also, love that jab on Atheists. Just a bunch of baby-killers, right? Knock off the passive-aggressive attitude and be upfront please.)
Posted by Bluepaintcan123 11 months ago
Bluepaintcan123
@Purushadasa You need to specify what you consider to be "alive" and when you consider the fetus to be "alive". Otherwise no one will debate you because you can just arbitrarily shut down their arguments.
(Also, love that jab on Atheists. Just a bunch of baby-killers, right? Knock off the passive-aggressive attitude and be upfront please.)
Posted by Prime_Time 11 months ago
Prime_Time
I really wish you can have crossfires during debates especially like these where they contain a very important topic.
Posted by Prime_Time 11 months ago
Prime_Time
I really wish you can have crossfires during debates especially like these where they contain a very important topic.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"I think its morally acceptable to do whatever with non-sentient beings. Babies are, but 1st-trimester fetuses are not."

Prove with evidence that 1st trimester babies are not sentient. Actually, you can't prove that claim because it is a false claim.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
I think its morally acceptable to do whatever with non-sentient beings. Babies are, but 1st-trimester fetuses are not.
And yes, I am an atheistic secular humanist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaEnchantedPlatinumTied
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: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.