The Instigator
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points

"Pro-Life" actually means "Pro-Genocide"

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 20 votes the winner is...
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,259 times Debate No: 24255
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (15)
Votes (20)

 

elvroin_vonn_trazem

Pro

This is a quick 1-round Debate. That's because the argument is extremely simple, and difficult to refute. Basically, the so-called "Pro-Life" crowd wants all pregnancies to result in childbirth, regardless of the consequences.

Well, that is a "penny-wise and pound-foolish" attitude. In the long run all it does is increase the Global Population Explosion, enhancing the probability that a Malthusian Catastrophe will occur.

When Thomas Malthus first wrote about such events, he observed that when an ordinary animal population experienced one, about 99% of the population perished.

Humans dissed the notion, basically saying, "We are too smart for that to happen to us!". Well, humans have been proved wrong.

The archaeological evidence from Easter Island indicates that at one point, maybe roughly 1300AD, it had a population of about 20,000 people. When the Europeans discovered the place a few centuries later, the population was maybe 200 --a 99% population drop. Now, those are population estimates, and it is possible that the max was smaller and the min was higher. It is probable, however, that at least an 80% population drop happened.

Why did it happen? Basically, the only major resource on the island was trees, mostly palm trees. The people cut them down for firewood, and to make fishing boats. The boats had a limited lifespan and had to be replaced regularly. ALL the trees eventually were cut down, and not long afterward is when the population crashed; they couldn't sustain feeding their max population.

htt.....ww.eco-action.org/dt/eisland.html (replace the initial dots with standard web-address characters)

So, if humans only experienced an 80% drop instead of a 99% drop, during the genuine Malthusian Catastrophe they experienced on Easter Island, we can chalk up the difference being smarter than the average animal. But not smart enough to avoid that disaster in the first place, apparently, according to all the current global population evidence.

Island Earth is simply a bigger island than Easter Island. Island Earth is exactly as much a finite thing as Easter Island, and can only support a limited, not unlimited, number of people. Do you see unlimited food, for unlimited people, at this linked page?
htt.../space.jaxa.jp/movie/20071113_kaguya_movie01_e.html

Now, if you were to carry out actions deliberately designed to kill 80% (or more) of humanity, could you be accused of plotting genocide?

I'm fairly sure the answer to that is "yes".

The so-called "Pro-Life" crowd is definitely plotting to cause humanity's global population to increase even faster than it already is increasing, by trying to ban abortion. I don't know why they seem to want a Malthusian Catastrophe to happen to humanity, but they certainly are acting like they want most of humanity to die, and sooner rather than later.

I therefore submit that they are actually "Pro-Genocide" --even if they don't know it!

Some more relevant data, both associated with increasing human population:
htt.....ww.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html
htt.....ww.cnn.com/2012/06/08/us/record-warmth/index.html
ConservativePolitico

Con

Pro - in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc.

Life - the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganicobjects and dead organisms, being manifested by growththrough metabolism, reproduction, and the power ofadaptation to environment through changes originatinginternally.

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial,political, or cultural group.

The resolution of this debate reads as follows:

"Pro-Life" actually means "Pro-Genocide"

The key term to this resolution is the word "actually" meaning that the first given term "pro-life" in actuality means something else, in this case the second given term "pro-genocide".

Therefore, my opponent in order to fufil the burden of proof and the resolution must prove that the term "pro-life" in actuality means "pro-genocide".

Since no definition of "pro-life" or "pro-genocide" were actually given I am going to use the definitions I gave above.

Pro-Life: the support of life (as defined above)

Pro-Genocide: the support of systematically killing a group

My opponent must prove that people who support life - contrary to the phrase and their position - actually support the systematic killing of a group.

Therefore, according to Pro, a mother hoping for her hospitalized son to live (pro-life) in actuality wants to exterminate a group of people.

This is false and cannot be proven to apply to all people supporting life and therefore Pro has failed to fill the Burden of Proof.

Thank you.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
I saw in some of the Vote Reasons that some think that my case would have been easy to refute even if directly tackled. Here I shall indicate that it might not be so easy.

If "genocide" is the deliberate killing of a lot of some group of people, and I have indicated that the relevant "group" is the whole human species, then being "pro genocide" means being in favor of some method of killing most of humanity. That is, there is a difference between being directly genocidal and being "pro genocide".

Ever since Thomas Malthus announced his discovery, many humans --especially those who say such things as "God will provide" (despite God supposedly having actually commited genocide via the Flood)-- have denied the idea that those Malthus' data applies to humanity.

The "it won't happen to us" notion explains such idiotic actions as texting while driving, or smoking cigarettes in bed. It also explains what is essentially a DARING of Nature to inflict a Malthusian Catastrophe upon humanity, via, among other things, "pro-lifers" insisting that all pregnancies should be carried to term.

Drivers in an auto race generally think they won't be involved in a wreck. Meanwhile, much of the crowd is there to see the wrecks. I may be mistaken in equating that "daring" thing in the last paragraph with being in favor of what happens if the dare fails to work out. But if nothing else, there is a very thin line between them!
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Blithe, ever heard the term vote-bomb?
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
These arguments are so easy to refute. Shame.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
I wish I could go back and time and warm myself not to read this debate. I won't get that time back!
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
SS, you know that Futurama quote was in response to some quacks who refused to believe in evolution right? :P
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
And... Pro wins. Smh.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Here I go being a spelling Nazi, using a word like "undisutable". I meant "indisputable". Shame, shame.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Spelling is granted to Pro. I pasted both arguments into MS Office for a quick spell check. Con's argument showed hits for "inorganicobjects", "growththrough", "ofadaptation", "originatinginternally", spacing between "racial,political", the word "fulfil" and some minor sentence structuring.

Arguments is granted to Con for a clear, rational and undisutable decimation of Pro's resolution. Con simply resorted to literal word definition to cut through Pro's semantic arguments.

The points for sources are granted to Pro for the simple reason that Con provided none. I would guard my points jealously, rather than giving them away. It would have suited Con to cite the dictionary, since he clearly used some form of authoritative text to debate.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
But Con never argued against it and thus it was conceded. Con just tried to redefine the entire debate and ignored Pro's argument entirely. Regardless of whether you think Pro was right you have to vote in his favor since Con all but conceded.
Posted by venusatpeace 4 years ago
venusatpeace
I'll occasionally fall for a wonky argument like this, but only if it's argued correctly. Con didn't provide a strong enough link between abortion and genocide. It was only "abortion wants people to be born, which will lead to global population increase and blah blah." You have to have a stronger tie to prove your claim. I mean, even some evidence about projected lives saved if abortion was illegal or something would have at least kind of helped.
I don't know if you could win this argument at all, though. It's really wonky
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: There was a valid argument on definition for Con to make, and he got halfway there. Genocide does require systematic action with intent to destroy, so Pro-Life really doesn't fit. Unfortunately, he defined Pro-Life so abusively that I can't give him argument points. If there were more rounds Pro would have had to refute, but here he lacks the opportunity. sources pro, since they were there. xtra 4 to counter blithe for an rfd based on his own opinion not the debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a few grammar mistakes, Con did not. Con provided a rebuttal that showed how the *term* pro-life is contrary to the term pro-genocide. Pro failed to make his certain context of the terms a rule, and Con exploited this to explain how the terms themselves are not equivalent.
Vote Placed by Blithe 4 years ago
Blithe
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a ridiculous proposal. Pro-life is being AGAINST the killing of people.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB Orator. "No sufficient rebuttal" is not an RFD.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con opted for semantics, which I consider to be a strawman approach. Conduct and argument to Pro.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of your arguments are bad, and you should both feel bad.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was weak, easily refutable. But Con didn't try to refute it. Rather, Con created a strawman case, and attacked that, leaving Pro's actual case untouched. In his RFD, Mouthwash refuted Pro's case in a mere two sentences: "Pro stated 'I therefore submit that they are actually "Pro-Genocide' --even if they don't know it!' However, supporting on something means you support the idea, not it's unintended consequences." That shows how easy refutation would have been, but Con didn't bother
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate poses a very interesting question; does the resolution include round 1? I believe it does because otherwise semantics would be a valid approach to any debate which would diminish the purpose. With that in mind, the intent of the debate was clear and Pro made a valid debatable argument to affirm his case. Con disregarded that intent and focused on the definitions of the words, therefore failing to refute Pros case.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
elvroin_vonn_trazemConservativePoliticoTied
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: I believe there are more factors that Pro did not address one of them being how many people die each day vs how many are born and live to an age where they are uilizing resources. Also Simply because one is pro life does not mean that they are deliberatly and systematically trying to kill off society. Argument goes to Con for dissecting/dismantling Pro's argument successfully.