Pro-Lifers Are Lost
Debate Rounds (5)
R1: Opening Statements/Layout Framework
R5: Closing Statements
1) Pro Lifers are not "Lost."
The resolution is easily rebutted. I am pro-life and know exactly where I am, and can point to my location on a map.
2) Pro Lifers are not "detached from reality"
Being detached from reality is a serious medical condition associated with anxiety disorders, depersonalization disorder, and intoxication [1, 2]. If a pro lifer is not drunk and does not have some kind of disorder, then they cannot become detached from reality. Therefore:
p1. In order for someone to be detached from reality, they must have a disorder/be constantly drunk
p1.1. My opponent's opening arguments state that all pro lifers are detached from reality
c1 (p1 + p1.1) In order for the resolution to be correct, ALL pro-lifers must have a disorder/be constantly drunk
p2.1 I am a pro-lifer
p2. I am not drunk, nor have I been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder or depersonalization disorder
c2 (p2 + p2.1) At least one pro-lifer is not detached from reality
c3 (c1 + c2) All pro lifers cannot have a disorder/be constantly drunk
BoP is on my opponent to prove that Pro-Lifers are ALL detached from reality.
Therefore, my opponent's general claim that pro-lifers are "lost" and "detached from reality" has a burden of proof that cannot be fulfilled. I remind my opponent that due to his debate structure, he cannot offer new arguments next round and may simply attempt to rebut my arguments. I wish my opponent a good day, and good luck.
Reality is an ongoing flow of variables within our environment. We interact with this reality. We perceive things from this reality, and at the end of the day, we are defined by those perceptions.
If at any point your perceptions are wrong, meaning your perceptions of reality are not in-line with reality, you are detached from reality. You are now living in a world that essentially doesn't exist. It may seem real to you, but the way you are filtering data is flawed. It is providing a picture that only seems true, but at the core of it is completely detached from reality. This does not mean you are mentally ill.
As far as being lost, this follows the same guidelines. You are completely lost in your own logic. You truly believe your answer is the right answer just because you think it. This is "lost".
I will use up this round in order for us to clarify. If you can provide any evidence that being detached from reality requires some sort of medical condition, feel free to do so.
I look forward to any comments you have supporting a ban on abortion or the pro-life movement in general.
My opponent, in essence, says that if anyone's subjective reality differs from the actual objective reality then they are disconnected from reality, i.e. if someone believes in the Christian God and the deistic God is the objective truth, then they are disconnected from reality.
Why this is incorrect:
Due to unascertainable truths such as the "God Issue" as well as codes of morals, many scientific theories, etc., it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality. There would be an inability for disagreement, an inability for this debate to be taking place, if objective reality was able to be ascertained in its entirety by human logic. Therefore, since subjective reality and objective reality cannot be equated in the human mind, those with a subjective reality that drastically differs with the subjective reality of the vast majority of people are seen as "detached from reality." Science has shown this to usually be a result of chemical imbalances in the brain . These imbalances are categorized as diseases, and these are the only people we can ALMOST truly say are detached from reality (using Occam's Razor). Other people whose views are held to be rational and conform to the main tenets of society are not considered detached from reality, because they seem to hold a subjective reality that is rational. There is no way to prove most people are detached from reality.
The full Burden of Proof is on my opponent to prove:
1) What the objective truth concerning abortion is (That allows for no subjective interpretation)
2) ALL pro-life supporters do not conform to this objective truth
3) Their reasonings for not conforming rely solely in opinion and not logic (my opponent states "lost" means people believe something entirely because they believe it).
I do not feel that I have to defend any pro-life ideas at the moment. Thanks for the debate, and good luck!
So then you agree that pro-lifers are detached from reality so long as they are drawing conclusions based on false perceptions of reality? I think you just explained everything to yourself.
So what is the truth? What is the objective truth here?
Well here it is. Pro-lifers are attempting to save life. Am I right? That is the entire point of pro-lifers and the pro-life movement. No more killing babies...right?
You want to ban abortion and force mothers who don't want children to have them, raise them poorly, and produce yet another problem for society to deal with. Some parents never wanted to be parents.
The detachment comes when pro-lifers attempt to tell you that their efforts are on behalf of unborn children, and that these living things don't have a voice. The "pro-life" approach is completely flawed. Banning abortion and protesting about the issue is such a waste of resources, and it all stems from people trying to yell loudly about something they think they believe in. A pro-lifers entire mind-set is plagued by logical fallacies. The information used to form a pro-lifers viewpoint is based on decades of rhetoric and fabrications.
The real problem here is unwanted pregnancy. We focus on abortion not realizing that prohibition creates black markets. Babies will still die.
If pro-lifers were not detached from reality, not detached from the facts, they would understand the real variables involved in this problem. You ban abortion and you still have the same problem.
That being said, pro-lifers are most definitely detached from reality. The truth of the matter escapes them while they ride on a wave of subjective morality.
I assume my either opponent stopped reading once they saw the quoted sentence above or just didn't understand my intentions, because they misunderstood entirely what I was saying. "Detached from reality" has a different societal meaning than my opponent implies. We as humanity cannot fully determine what objective reality is. That's why there are so many disagreements over issues, why science searches for answers to make our understandings more objective. My opponent quotes "it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality" out of context. It is impossible because one cannot determine exactly what objective reality is. If my opponent claims that pro-lifers are out of sync with objective reality, then they must prove the objective reality of the situation and how the subjective reality of pro-lifers measures to it.
My opponent next offers his subjective opinion, plagued with ad hominem attacks, on the argument, supposing it to be objective. He subjectively claims that subjecting children to an underprivileged life is worse than murder. Unfortunately, other subjective realities exist.
US Laws ban murder, while they do not ban "bringing children up in a bad home." The Declaration of Independence speaks of an unalienable right to life. The ten commandments condemn murder. My opponent claims that these subjective realities are all incorrect. In addition, children do not have to be brought up in the home of a mother who doesn't want them. Adoption is a viable and safer alternative to abortion .
My opponent also cites that pro-lifers are wrong because they protest. This, whether it actually makes them wrong or not, is inapplicable, as many pro-lifers do not protest. I have never protested. Furthermore, they have the right to free speech. A lot of the rest of my opponent's argument rests on ad hominem attacks and supposing pro-lifers to be wrong because they are, something he himself condemns.
Really, my opponent states, the problem is that babies will still die. Black Market abortions will happen. However, pro-lifers understand this. Over 1,000,000 babies died in the last year from abortion. How many died of back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade? Roughly 1,000 per year . 1,000 times as many babies die from legal abortion. If adoption is promoted more, this number may drop even further.
My opponent claims that pro-lifers are separated from reality. Unfortunately, he never presents an objective reality that they separate themselves from. He presents his subjective reality and claims it as fact. Pro-lifers are therefore not proven as "lost" or "detached from reality."
This entire paragraph rests on one assumption, "We as humanity cannot fully determine what objective reality is." We cannot fully determine what objective reality is, and I don"t remember ever claiming we could. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be basing our decisions on the objective reality that actually determines outcomes.
My argument is that a pro-lifers logic is derived from a detachment from reality, or a detachment from the objective reality that creates the problem in question. If your solutions are derived from a false reality, or a detachment from our objective reality, you will then have solutions created in a vacuum. They do not work as they do not match up with variables in the environment influencing the issue.
---"They must prove the objective reality of the situation and how the subjective reality of pro-lifers measures to it." ---
The reality of this situation is simple. Abortion was created as a social band aid. Pro lifers now want to remove the band aid, and start from scratch. My question is, are you looking into a solution for the problems that will inevitably exist after you ban abortion? Have you considered the expanded social implications since it is no longer 1973. Have you considered that people may just go overseas to have this done?
Again, realize the solution pro-lifers give is not a solution at all. You want to save babies, but only because the number is over 1,000,000. You are apparently content with 1,000 per year.
Does that sound like a detachment problem? I think so.
---My opponent next offers his subjective opinion, plagued with ad hominem attacks, on the argument, supposing it to be objective. He subjectively claims that subjecting children to an underprivileged life is worse than murder. Unfortunately, other subjective realities exist.---
I never said anything about subjecting children to an underprivileged life. The point in bringing up parents not wanting their children, was to highlight the real issue, unwanted pregnancies. Pro-lifers tend to focus on the issue of abortion, and do not expend as much energy advocating for things like early childhood education or education reform. This entire paragraph was rhetoric.
---US Laws ban murder, while they do not ban "bringing children up in a bad home." The Declaration of Independence speaks of an unalienable right to life. The ten commandments condemn murder. My opponent claims that these subjective realities are all incorrect. In addition, children do not have to be brought up in the home of a mother who doesn't want them. Adoption is a viable and safer alternative to abortion ."
Again, you being this paragraph with even more rhetoric. "My opponent claims that these subjective realities are all incorrect." I never said anything about the Declaration of Independence or the Ten Commandments.
You wave the "murder flag" when it comes to abortion, but have nothing to say about the black markets for abortion that will undoubtedly open when a ban is put I place. You are not concerned with fixing the core problem, unwanted pregnancy, you merely wave the flag of pro-life to make yourself feel good about the place you are in, a place detached from reality.
You then go further to say "Adoption is a viable and safer alternative." You obviously haven"t done much research on the subject. Foster care is no walk in the park. I would not condemn any child to that kind of life. Nobody is saying "murder" is the alternative. However, pro-lifers present solutions that would merely bring us back decades, and they continue on their march, increasingly detached from the absolute variables impacting the problem.
----My opponent also cites that pro-lifers are wrong because they protest. This, whether it actually makes them wrong or not, is inapplicable, as many pro-lifers do not protest. I have never protested. Furthermore, they have the right to free speech. A lot of the rest of my opponent's argument rests on ad hominem attacks and supposing pro-lifers to be wrong because they are, something he himself condemns.----
Everybody can say what they want. The point is this, if you are walking around protesting, holding signs or in your head, you are expending energy to fix a problem"right? I would assume that if you disagree with something, you will also take action to contribute to the solution.
That expenditure of energy by pro-lifers is absolutely useless. You are not saving children, you are not ending abortion, and you are not accomplishing the goal you set out to achieve in the first place. So you tell me, if you set out to achieve a goal, and the strategy you use is completely counterproductive, would you not say you are detached from reality? I think you already agreed with this definition.
Pro-lifers continue their selfish rampage across the globe, while resources could be redirected to really solve the problem. Do you think the men and women performing the abortions care enough to come up with a solution? Then it is on pro-lifers to really push a viable fix for this socially unacceptable problem.
Unfortunately, since pro-lifers have decided to make this entire problem about abortion, we will never move forward to tackle the real problem. While you protest, children continue to die, and you have spent yet another day failing to walk the right path.
----Really, my opponent states, the problem is that babies will still die. Black Market abortions will happen. However, pro-lifers understand this. Over 1,000,000 babies died in the last year from abortion. How many died of back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade? Roughly 1,000 per year . 1,000 times as many babies die from legal abortion. If adoption is promoted more, this number may drop even further."
It"s funny that you try to use such a skewed statistic. The 1,000 abortions per year are reported abortions. You have no way of knowing how many back alley abortions were performed each year.
You also fail to account for the double loss of life. Many back alley abortions cause the mother to die due to infection or bleeding. It"s not a pretty way to go. However, you pro-lifers seem to think it"s a grand idea. This entire view is completely detached from reality. This is definitely not the way forward.
Pro-lifers offer band aids that would merely create another social problem for us to fix. Regardless of what rhetoric you use to support your views, the entire argument you give is absolutely in support of my argument.
My opponent claims that pro-lifers are separated from reality. Unfortunately, he never presents an objective reality that they separate themselves from. He presents his subjective reality and claims it as fact. Pro-lifers are therefore not proven as "lost" or "detached from reality."===
Well, that sounds nice. Unfortunately, none of that is accurate. An objective reality does exist, and it determines the absolute variables we use to build perceptions. Some of these perceptions are naturally subjective and need to remain subjective. However, this is a social problem with absolute variables. We may never know exactly what those variables are. However, if we start implementing subjective solutions when the problem is based on an objective reality, our subjective analysis will clash with reality. The result is what you see today.
We need to stop assuming our solution is the right solution because we think it matches up with some moral code we have established for ourselves. If we really want to fix this problem, I guarantee it does not come on the back of legislation to ban abortion.
This entire view is detached from the reality that a real solution involved removing our children from situations where unwanted pregnancy can occur. We need to be accountable for our children and reduce the need for such services.
Prohibition has never solved anything. All prohibition does is create black markets for the product or service, and then superficially raises the value of said service to such proportions that new social problems emerge.
Completely lost in their own logic, and detached from the reality they try to perceive, no solution pro-lifers will generate can fix this issue.
Thanks for the argument, pro.
To keep myself from quoting my opponent's entire argument in mine, I'm going to assign each non-quotes paragraph of my opponent's a number and rebut them.
1) This is an important point. My opponent here agrees objective reality cannot be fully ascertained.
2) I would like to say that this is NOT a debate about whether abortion is correct or morally permissible. This is NOT a debate over whether abortion should be legalized. This debate concerns whether pro-life advocates are detached from reality. As I claimed before, reality is objective, but cannot be objectively ascertained. There are facts of a situation. 1,000,000 babies die per year due to abortion. Less babies die if it is outlawed. These are the facts we have right now. Anything else is speculation.
3 & 4) Outlawing normal murder is the same. Sure, people are still going to murder, but far less often than if it was legal. Heroin is illegal, and people still traffic it on the Black Market, but if legalized, it would damage society far more. Pro-lifers are not content with Black Market abortions and the like, but the less babies that die, the better. The real debate concerns whether more murder or more of possibly subjecting children to bad homes and unfit parents is worse. This answer seems obvious to me, but I cannot prove that this answer is objective. Different sides take their ideas of subjective reality. Pro-Lifers believe that the less babies that die, the better society will be. I don't know how this demonstrates a detachment from reality, as the objective reality of the situation is unascertainable.
5) Sex is a biological act intended to produce children. When you have sex, you're going to have kids. Although some women are raped, the vast majority of abortions occur to parents who just didn't want to get pregnant. Why should we punish a baby for his parents' mistake? My opponent wants to teach children, but abortion is just giving them a way out of a lesson on responsibility. This rebuttal actually has no relevance to the debate about "detachment."
6) Though my opponent didn't specifically reference the Declaration or the Ten Commandments, these are two documents that claim to contain objective truth that condemn abortion. The Declaration references life as an "unalienable right", while the Ten Commandments condemns murder.
7) Although Black Markets will possibly open, this cannot be proven, and therefore is not reality. Whether or not pro-lifers accept that Black Markets will open, this does not matter in regards to reality, as the opening of Black Markets is not reality. Pro-lifers cannot detach themselves from a nonexistant reality. My opponent also assumes that making abortion illegal means that only abortion in clinics would be illegal. Police would need to take measures to locate and shut down all Black Market abortion operations.
8) My opponent claims that because Foster Care sometimes creates bad situations, it is worse than abortion (I know a few adopted children in loving, caring homes). He claims nobody is claiming murder is the other option, but has accepted for the entire debate, or at least failed to rebut, that abortion is murder, and that abortion is the other option. My opponent claims that pro-lifers are detached from "absolute variables." The phrase "absolute variable" is an oxymoron. If something is absolute, it cannot vary, and vice-versa. This paragraph proves nothing other than my opponent"s subjective opinion.
9 & 10) I actually mostly agree here. Protesting does not seem to be accomplishing much for those that protest, at least in my subjective opinion. However, I do not protest, and I am pro-life. Due to the general nature of the resolution, this negates my opponent's point about the futility of protest.
11) This argument is purely ad-hominem and contains no substance. Pro-lifers are trying to fix the problem of abortion. In addition, many attempt to encourage abstinence (and some contraception) in schools , which solve my opponent's qualms with no assesment by pro-lifers of the "real problem."
12) My opponent needs to prove that abortion is objectively impossible to be the problem, which he continues to fail to do. he continues to assert that there is a "right path" but fails to demonstrate why this path is right. As I stated before, the subjective opinions of pro-lifers cannot be proven as impossible to be objective reality. There is no way to say they are detached from reality.
13) It is highly unlikely that abortions were over 1000 times higher than reported, and my opponent is not able to offer objective statistics, as I have.
14) Even "safe abortions" can cause loss of life . Pro-lifers intend to exterminate all abortion, not just legal abortion.
15) I ask my opponent for objective proof and not conjecture, that another problem would be created, as well as objective proof that the loss of life would be greater if abortion was illegal.
16) I fully support that an objective reality exists. My opponent has not given proof as to how we can ascertain it without a doubt concerning abortion. His burden remains unfufilled. He again uses the term "absolute variables", which is an oxymoron. This social problem indeed has variables, which makes it a subjective issue. These variables cannot be absolute or they no longer would be variables. My opponent admits that we cannot know what these variables are. I believe this is essentially a concession of the debate, but I'll leave it up to voters, as often debaters see things that aren't there due to bias.
17) This is purely subjective.
18) My opponent here admits abortion is a problem! He may believe the solution is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but so do many pro-lifers. "Pro-Life" is simply a movement that disagrees with abortion. Any other beliefs or practices are not typical of every member of the pro-life movement. Therefore, since my opponent disagrees with the fundamental idea of abortion, and claims it is a problem, he is a "pro-lifer" himself, albeit one with a very nuanced opinion about abortion legalization.
My opponent has a burden too high to be proven. My opponent cannot prove objectively that pro-lifers are detached from objective reality, as he cannot ascertain what the objective reality of the situation is. My opponent disagrees with the actions of various pro-lifers rather than their beliefs. However, my opponent cannot prove that all pro-lifers perform these acts, nor can he prove these acts are objectively incorrect (doing so would require proving that no protest ever had any effect on abortion whatsoever).
My opponent has asserted abortion is a problem, which is the only belief all pro-lifers hold. His subjective reality matches theirs. As I have stated before, as most of objective reality is unknown, only those with diseases can be proven as detached from reality.
1) I never said anything about our ability to fully ascertain the objective world. You will never fully understand the objective reality that creates our subjective reality. So, again, for the second time, I am not sure why you keep referencing this.
2) Your point here is fairly easy to understand. You would rather 1,000 babies die per year than 1,000,000. However, you fail to talk about the fact that it's not the 70's and I am sure more people would work around the law. If you don't think so, just look at all the current laws we have in place, and how many people break them on a daily basis.
You would rather dump another social problem on law enforcement. That would be such a nightmare, and the fact that you believe it's a better alternative supports my point, you are detached from reality. We will come back to this later on.
3&4) Your attitude is , "Hey 1,000 is better than 1,000,000" which is really disturbing to me. You then go further to cite adoption once again. You fail to realize that some of these children will fail to end up in foster care. They will die soon before any DCF worker could get to them. This entire solution is a bomb waiting to go off.
Let me say this again, pro-lifers continue to support a solution that would create more havoc in society than the problem itself. If they could just refocus on the root causes of this problem, the objective reality we cannot fully ascertain will support the correct answer, as absolute variables within the environment determine everything.
Brings me to my next point. You said something about absolute variables. I am going to quote you here, "My opponent claims that pro-lifers are detached from "absolute variables." The phrase "absolute variable" is an oxymoron. If something is absolute, it cannot vary, and vice-versa."
What definition of absolute are you using? I am not sure you really understand what you said here. Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. I am not sure what definition you are using, and this is not part of the debate so I will move on.
5) I want to point out that your argument is this, "We need to teach them a lesson by forcing them to have that baby, and in the process be emotionally destroyed for having to do so."
This is your solution pro-lifers. I would say this supports my claim that pro-lifers are indeed detached from reality.
6) You cannot really describe matter. You can give it a name. You can call it what you want. You can even look at the atoms and call them atoms. However, you are never actually describing what that thing is, you are merely interpreting what you see. This is what you mean when you say we cannot perceive the objective world. You make it seem like it's behind a curtain or something and we cannot ever understand how any of it works.
7) You doubt black markets will open because you are detached from reality in this niche of your logic. Black markets will open because that is how things work. If you prohibit an item that has value, you increase that value and create alternative ways to meet that demand.
The demand will be met. The fact that you don't realize this further supports my claim that you are detached from the variables within our objective reality that build the problem you so desperately seek to resolve.
8) You downplay the problems in foster care systems because you really don't understand the problems currently plaguing most foster care systems. So, I would suggest you do some research. This will help you come in line with reality a little more.
Also, the problems you would create for social services would be, insane. Who is paying for all this? Pro-lifers?
9 & 10) It's not just about protesting. It's about expending energy for a cause that is counterproductive. It will actually harm society to do what you propose to do.
If you ban abortion, not only are you sidestepping the core problem, but you create such a burden for local government that it would not be sustainable.
11) The problem of abortion? Abortion was a band aid. Nobody wants people to continue getting pregnant just to have abortions. EVERYBODY agrees that unwanted pregnancies are a problem. Why are we not working on that? Why not devote your time and energy to the right causes.
So your solution is going into schools to talk to these kids about not doing the only thing their bodies are telling them to do. Real smart. I am absolutely positive nobody cares about anything you have to say after they get to that party on Friday night. This problem is pervasive, and you will never solve it with a ban on abortion. This is merely a crusade that makes you feel nice inside. This is further proof of a detachment from reality.
12) Let me quote you here. "My opponent needs to prove that abortion is objectively impossible to be the problem, which he continues to fail to do."
Abortion, again, is not the problem. Unwanted pregnancy is the problem. This is the detachment you still fail to see. You believe the problem is abortion, because you are detached from reality. The problem is pretty obvious.
13) I don't need to argue about the rate of illegal abortions. You can have your 1,000 number. Just realize what year that was in. That was in the 70's.
You keep using 1,000 although you must realize that number was "reported illegal abortions" and you have no way of knowing how much higher the number was. We both agree it probably was not 1,000 times higher. However, you fail to account for the variation. The number was much higher than 1,000 and I think you know that. You use this to minimize the opposing side, charming but not effective.
14) This was just you restating your position.
15) Nobody ever said the loss of life would be greater if abortion was illegal. I said you are creating new problems. If you cannot understand the burden you would put on agencies of state and federal government, you need to research a little more.
Who pays for this change? Who pays the new police officers we now need to hire? Who pays for the federal agency to enforce the ban? You ask me...."How do we know it will create problems?"
This is further evidence of a detachment from reality.
16) Again, you reference "absolute variables" and this is just you misunderstanding what the word means. I provided a definition above for you to look at.
You assert that since something is absolute it cannot change. This is not true. You also get the term variable confused with something else.... an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change. Again, I will not go into this as it is not part of the debate. However, I would be happy to start another debate on absolute variables.
17) Here you attempt to separate the pro-life movement from the overall goal of ending "murder" all together. For the sake of debate might I add. Pro-lifers support the same movement the rest of us support. Nobody wants to have an abortion. This is not a problem that requires prohibition. However, since you are detached from the reality that creates the symptom you are trying to fix with a ban on abortion, you will never reach the real goal.
You claim no real goal exists. Really? So in the quest to ban abortion you don't have an ultimate vision of fixing society so unwanted pregnancy does not occur? Well, then you are more detached than I initially thought. You attempt to say that the only focus here is abortion. Well, that is the core of this problem. That is the core of your detachment. The problem is not abortion. The problem is a pervasive social worm that cannot be fixed with a ban on abortion.
The detachment you live in prevents you from understanding me. This detachment, if resolved, would allow you to understand that a path toward less dead babies exists, and it is much more efficient than the one you are currently on.
Your only argument is that I don't know what this path is. That's subjective, and really isn't part of this debate. This debate is about whether or not pro-lifers are detached from reality.
I will leave it up to the voters to decide. My opponent has used a substantial amount of rhetoric to support his arguments. He asserts that no real problem exists here, we are just trying to stop abortion. Well, I disagree with that. I think this is a waste of our resources and should be looked at through a new lens.
This problem is a pervasive social issue, and prohibition will not end it, just as prohibition failed to in the past. My opponent attempts to persuade you that this is just my subjective opinion. That is for you to decide, but I assure you it is not subjective. The real issue is obvious, and I think these voters are smart enough to understand that.
The real problem is unwanted pregnancy. The detachment from reality these pro-lifers continue to embrace will ultimately serve to inhibit any progress on the issue.
Pro-lifers, like my opponent, fail to realize the implications a ban on abortion would have on law enforcement, social services, and government itself. You may say, "well that's better than dead babies" , but you fail to realize it results in the same. Stretched social services, less law enforcement due to a new case-load, and budget cuts to pay for this nightmare.
My opponent fails to consider these things because of his detachment from reality. I believe I have proven my case. I believe the intelligent voters will understand what I am saying.
The problem is not abortion. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. Any deviation from the correct path toward a solution is a waste of resources. Pro-lifers would have us spend years lobbying to ban abortion, years trying to enforce it, and finally end up with the same problem we have today, unwanted pregnancies.
I say that's a detachment from reality, and I know you do too.
Thanks to my opponent for the final argument. I don't feel that my opponent cited anything objective, while he failed to offer proof for any of his subjective statements. His BoP isn't even close to fulfilled in this debate. With that in mind, I'll make short rebuttals in order not to tax voters further by reading a long debate.
1) My opponent here claims, "I never said anything about our ability to fully ascertain the objective world." Yet in the previous round, he claimed, "We cannot fully determine what objective reality is." Later in this round, he asserts, "the objective reality we cannot fully ascertain will support the correct answer." I advise voters to carefully read all arguments.
2) My opponent has provided no proof that more babies would die now than in the 70's. Therefore his burden is unfulfilled.
3 & 4) Where is the proof that these children will die before foster care gets to them? What will they die from? I have proven that adoption is an alternative to abortion that will save lives. My opponent has admitted through all of his arguments that saving lives is a good idea. He has provided no proof that adoption is wrong other than by esssentially saying "foster care is bad" over and over. Therefore my point stands unrebutted.
I'm going to quote the next part:
"If they could just refocus on the root causes of this problem, the objective reality we cannot fully ascertain will support the correct answer"
What does this actually mean? It means everything my opponent is saying is subjective. He says he is sure objective reality will support his arguments, but he also admits he cannot figure out what objective reality is. Therefore he cannot be sure his arguments are supported by objective reality.
When something is "not relative" it cannot be changed by anything. This makes something unable to be a variable, as variables change. However, while I still do not think "absolute variables" is an apt term to use, I understand the idea, and will leave it be.
5) My opponent uses an appeal to emotion fallacy here. I could just as easily say:
My opponent's argument is this, "The couple made a mistake by having a baby. Therefore, we should slaughter the baby because they don't feel like having it, emotionally destroying the mother to do so."
But this is an appeal to emotion. It is a fallacy and proves nothing.
6) My opponent is correct about the atom, but an issue such as abortion isn't so black and white. Many contributing factors of objective reality, what my opponent calls "absolute variables" exist on a situation, from which we draw our subjective realities. My opponent only admits the factors that support abortion exist, while ignoring those that deny it. Pro-lifers view all of the factors and decide based on their values that saving lives is the most important thing, and draw their subjective reality from that.
7) I agree that Black Markets will likely open. There is no proof, however, that they will, and without an objective reality, there will always be doubt.
8) My opponent has the BoP. Since he did not "do some research" himself, his assertions are null.
Government funds pay for abortion . With abortion illegal, the government could further fund adoption.
9 & 10) Once again, bald assertions with no proof.
11) Once again, many pro-life people are working on this. My sources are above.
In this second part, my opponent makes more bald assertions, while racking up appeal to emotion and ad hominem fallacies. Many pro-lifers are Christian, and do not believe in birth control. However, many promote safe sex and birth control as well.
12) The issue is children dying. Abortion encourages unwanted pregnancies, as women can just put on a "Band-Aid" if they become pregnant. My opponent keeps claiming I am detached from reality baselessly.
13) I'm not sure why my opponent even argued this. He admits I'm right, that less babies would die if abortion was illegalized. I fail to see what "that was in the 70's" proves.
15) The answer to all my opponent's questions is "the government" which is to say, I suppose, mostly taxpayers. I once again fail to see how anything in that paragraph proves a "detachment from reality"
17) My opponent in the next two paragraphs makes assertions about my arguments that are completely untrue, such as "You claim no real goal exists." However, I have claimed the end of losing life is the goal. Both ending unplanned pregnancies and legal abortion are important steps on the path to this goal. However, abortion gives a "quick fix" to unplanned pregnancies via murder, and therefore needs to be eradicated. This does not mean pro-lifers do not understand that unplanned pregnancies are bad, they just do not think murder is the way to solve the issue. My opponent continually keeps repeating "detachment", apparently trying to ingrain it into the voters' minds. Read the whole debate please, voters.
Although my opponent gives a valiant effort in this debate, he has failed in his burden. Although he has claimed many reasons for pro-lifers being wrong (unsourced, unsupported, mostly speculative reasons), he has never asserted why that makes them wrong. His logic looks like this:
p1. Black Markets will probably open when abortion is illegalized
c1. Pro-lifers must be detached from reality
As you can see, my opponent's arguments are faulty as they are missing an entire premise. They are almost completely non-sequitur. He fails to prove that any of his speculated problems are worse than murder. My opponent also has not and cannot prove that ALL pro-lifers, such as those who attempt to discourage unplanned pregnancies, are incorrect. My opponent fails in his burden and therefore cannot win this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro constantly committed the Moving the Goalpost fallacy, "BoP is on my opponent to prove that Pro-Lifers are ALL detached from reality." ALL was not a part of the resolution. R2 "I look forward to any comments you have supporting a ban on abortion or the pro-life movement in general." That is about where pro lost the debate, wanting con to provide reasons for his assertion to be wrong, without first providing his own reasons for his assertions to be true. pro's best moment IMO was quoting con saying "it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality," since by definition no one is 100% perceiving reality properly. ... I agree with con that pro did not meet BoP, even while con used the fallacy form of it. It's enough of a clear win for con, that I am ignoring my previous statement of not awarding argument points (my bias is in pro's favor on arguments). Sources I am leaving tied, they lean in cons favor, but did not feel their impact.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Pro sufficiently supported the notion that Pro-Lifers are inherently detached from reality. He pointed out flaws in their position, but even taken at face value, being wrong is not the same thing as being detached from reality. Even being spectacularly wrong on a single point (to again take all of his arguments at face value) does not necessarily show that. I think Pro took on a bigger resolution than he could handle--and in this case, the hyperbole (if that's what it was) cost him. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.