The Instigator
tarrin2015
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Legal Abortion

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 3 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 82635
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

tarrin2015

Con

This debate is "should abortion be legal?" Short answer no... Long answer noooooooo... Lol, but seriously, Abortion is murder any way that you look at it. I am excited for an intelligent debate
Lexus

Pro

I accept. Since I am the affirmative I assume that I will be providing my case in this round, per DDO customs.

I would like to accept my opponent's argument that abortion is murder - something that I wholeheartedly agree with. Abortion is murder no matter how you slice it - by being the negation on this resolution, my opponent is trying to restrict murder and save lives. By being the affirmative I am against the idea that we have a moral or ethical duty to save lives.

In this round I will be attempting to kritik the resolution by means of "Queer Theory", a kritikal argument known mostly in policy debate.

Link:
The negation is necessarily trying to reduce the amount of deaths in the world. The fatal assumption within this type of thinking is that the obsession over life is something that we should all have - something that I will be attacking.

Professor Lee Adelman explains in "No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive" that to advocate for life in the future is an attempt to normalise the homosexual soul and to advocate for the heterosexual one. He says, "[t]his conflation of homosexuality with the radical negativity of sinthomosexuality continues to shape our social realitydespite the well intentioned efforts of many ... to normalize queer sexualities within a logic of meaning that finds realization only in and as the future."

This means that the negation is necessarily arguing FOR heteronormativity and normalising the queer. (Normalising means to make them part of the "normal" group or the heterosexual one - not to think that they are equals - far from it!)

Impact:
Gust Yep, Karen Lovaas and John Elia, professors of San Francisco University in the journal "the Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2/3/4" in 2003 explain that to normalise the queer and to make the unnormalised queer feel "Other" is the root cause of all violence in the world. They say:
  • "Normalization is the process of constructing, establishing, producing, and reproducing a taken-for-granted and all-encompassing standard used to measure goodness, desirability, morality, rationality, superiority, and a host of other dominant cultural values. As such, normalization becomes one of the primary instruments of power in modern society ... Normalization is a symbolically, discursively, psychically, psychologically, and materially violent form of social regulation and control"
All violent dictators (the ones that have control over the masses) are a direct result of this normalisation of the "others" - or the queer individuals in society! Dictatorship is inevitable without the queered masses.

Alternative:
Vote against the team that is advocating for the normalisation of the masses and leading to dictatorships! Allow abortion and allow the queer! Vote against the heteronormative approach of viewing the world and allow the queer-focused one to have a say!

Thank you ~
Debate Round No. 1
tarrin2015

Con

Ok... So I'm not even really understanding your argument... You are saying that by accepting abortions we are preventing dictatorship? That makes no sense and has no statistical support. Furthermore the argument of homosexuality is a totally different topic
Lexus

Pro

My argument is this: you are attempting to save innocent lives. Saving lives is heteronormative and normalises the queer - and makes them "other". Otherness creates conflict and arises dictatorships.

Your case makes dictatorships, yes. As for the "no statistical support" - I provided quality sources for you and I quoted them (they are behind paywalls so I will not provide the full text because I doubt the authors want that) - just saying that my arguments are unsubstantiated is fallacious.

In the end my opponent just says my argument doesn't make sense - never attacking. He also provides no reasons to vote in negation, just that doing so saves lives - I AGREE but saving lives is INHERENTLY flawed!

Easily vote in affirmation because of the dropped arguments and a lack of constructive arguments on my opponent's side.

Thank you ~
Debate Round No. 2
tarrin2015

Con

No, I was using my Turn to better understand your argument... But, the debate is not "is criminalizing abortion dictatorial?" The debate is "should abortion be legal?" If you have already agreed with me that abortion is murder, then how can you argue that abortion should be legal? Are you suggesting we make murder legal? And if you are worried that by criminalizing abortion would create a dictatorship then shouldn't we legalize all forms of drugs? Because by not accepting that act is another form of what you called "normalization" as a matter of fact, every law would be "not accepting the queer" in one way or another... Where do we draw the line? Or do you suggest we go to an anarchy
Lexus

Pro

Abortion should be legal because if it isn't then you are saving lives - saving lives is inherently flawed (see: my entire case). We shouldn't save lives because saving lives is heteronormative (again: see my entire case).

I don't need to speak about if I think murder should be legal or not because that is extra-topical. I don't understand what your drug question is about. I'm not advocating against or for anarchy, that's not topical.

My opponent refutes *none* of my case - take it at its full weight.
Debate Round No. 3
tarrin2015

Con

I have refuted your whole case... Your case stands around legalizing the murder of innocent babies to prevent a dictatorship... You are arguing the wrong case... And if you have already stated that abortion is murder, yet you are trying to argue that abortion should be legal, then you are trying to argue that murder should be legal... Murder should not he legal under any circumstances... And on your point of "criminalizing abortion will create a dictatorship" how on earth is saving the lives of thousands of children gonna overthrow our whole government system? And my point about the drugs is this: if we make drugs illegal then we aren't accepting those who use them... Therefore making them the "queer"... If we do not legalize all drugs and accept those people then we will create a dictatorship... I was merely using an example to show how flawed your argument is.
Lexus

Pro

Abortion prevents dictatorship. Let me show you:
1. Saving life is heteronormative.
2. Heteronormativity excludes the queer and makes the queer "other"
3. Otherness causes conflict and dictatorships.
THEREFORE, a lack of abortion causes dictatorships.

I am pro-death and pro-murder. If a criminalisation of drugs makes the drug users queer then I say to decriminalise.

You are just saying that murder should not be allowed ... okay, but outlawing murder is heteronormative and leads to conflict and violence and bad stuff that is said to be bad with evidence other than just your own blinded opinion. You didn't offer a reason that we should not have abortion beyond saying it is murder ... I turned your case saying that "murder" is good!

You provide absolutely no reasons to vote con beyond saying murder is bad and abortion is murder. I say that abortion is good for the very same reason - but I have actual reasons (cited evidence, whereas you did not).



I call the blind man a liar when he is as much of one as me. He swears he can see the colors and the trees; I say I can see reality.
Debate Round No. 4
tarrin2015

Con

I went back and re-read both sources that you used earlier in the debate... Actually what they are saying is by normalizing the "queer" you are then going to have a control issue therefore "dictatorship" normalization happens when we begin to accept that which is different this making it normal... So what your sources are saying is that by making it legal you will create a dictatorship... Kind of contradictory... Furthermore... Voters should vote pro because I am the only one to actually stay on topic... The topic was not "how to prevent dictatorship" it was "should abortion be legal" and as it stands, murder in this country is illegal... And if we can come to a consensus that abortion is murder (it is in fact killing an organism that has brain function) then it stands to reason that abortion in and of itself should be illegal.
Lexus

Pro

Con concedes the debate in round 4: "Furthermore... Voters should vote pro".

My quotes don't say that at all, btw. Trying to make life exist is bad because heteronormativity ... also, I didn't give you the full quotes because they're behind paywalls, just be assured you did not assess what they said very well.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
I know it's a slippery slope but I also knew it would not be pointed out, so whatever.
Posted by Quoth 1 year ago
Quoth
Pro argues that "Dictatorship is inevitable without the queered masses"
He proceeded to turn this around into: queered masses cause dictatorships. This is by no means true.
If B only occurs when A occurs, does not mean A will always lead to B. Careful of that slippery slope.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
@Zac - Pro was winning anyway. It didn't affect the debate outcome in any way at all. I just used that in my RFD because I'm lazy.
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
Eh, I don't like how Pro took advantage of a typo in the last round. It just seems cowardly, but I could be wrong.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
tarrin2015LexusTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Let me start with discussing spelling and grammar. "Long answer noooooooo... Lol, but seriously". Lol is chatspeak I would suggest avoiding that. No is spelled no. Not noo. About convincing arguments. I noticed that con did not understand the argument about dictatorship. So he was not able to refute it. I also loved the deep refutation for the only point con brought up- that it saves lives. I quote, "that to advocate for life in the future is an attempt to normalise the homosexual soul and to advocate for the heterosexual one.". That was perfect and since the con attempted to say that there was no link (and there was a link). They lost this argument. Now to talk about the sources. So the Lee Adelman quote was very strong. The con on the other hand sited no sources. Now some tips: Con should focus more on adding evidence and he should attack arguments head- on instead of pointing out irrelevance. I would also consider making your vocabulary more formal for con. Both sides did great!
Vote Placed by pie5434 1 year ago
pie5434
tarrin2015LexusTied
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: I would like to write a long RFD but literally Lexus sounds like someone who did speech and debate (Policy???) with those kind of arguments . I feel like the Con didn't really understand the arguments and because of that could of refute the pro and the con has the burden to either A) Prove that the murdering children is a bigger impact than prevention of dictatorship B) Framework (which there was none) C) Destroy all the arguments the other side has basically..
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
tarrin2015LexusTied
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: Con generalizes Pro's arguments significantly, putting them all under one heading and fails to individually assess and any of them. Furthermore, Con concedes the debate by requesting that voters vote pro in the final round of the debate. By running a Kritik pro is essentially noob swiping here but I do not award points to con for this because it was never stated in the rules of the debate not to run a kritik. Overall, the debate outcome wasn't really a surprise to me and maybe next time Con will make a rule in R1 stating: 'no kritiks', to avoid these type of debates.