The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should end its public funding for Planned Parenthood.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,445 times Debate No: 78064
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (67)
Votes (2)

 

lannan13

Pro

This is the first round of the Autumn Tournament where I am facing off against Wylted.


Rules
First Round is Terms and defintions by Pro, Acceptance by Con.
Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALS
Third Round is Rebuttals.
Forth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion.
No Semantics, the definitions provided are what is to be used in this debate
.No Trolling.
BOP is shared.
No K's.
If any of the above rules are violated, all 7 points go to the opposition.

Zarroette is banned from voting on this debate. If she votes it shall be concidered a votebomb and shall be removed as such.

United States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the local government. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)

Planned Parenthood- an organization that provides reproductive health care services, including the promotion of accessible means of voluntary fertility control, operation of clinics, conduction of educational programs, conduction of research, and dissemination of information. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)

Defund (in the case of this debate)- prevent from continuing to receive funds from the Federal Government.
Wylted

Con

I accept, and Lannan didn't mention this, unless I just read past it, but minimum ELO to vote is set for 2,000.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives

P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2. Abortion does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce abortion through the funding of planned parenthood..

""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]

According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. As a matter of fact the Planned Parenthood is actually the exact opposite of a Perfect Duty and is shown to be that of something that the Federal Government should protect against, or at least not do. I'll get more into this in a later contention.

“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]

We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3]

Contention 2: Moral Hazard.

Yes, you read right, moral hazad. The definition of moral hazard is "The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles." [4] This is better known as "too big to fail." Now you may ask yourself why is this a moral hazard, the government funding Planned Parenthood? This is simple. Planned Parenthood does not have enough money to meet its opperation costs as seen bellow. Now you may ask yourself, "Where is the federal funding in that chart?" The answer is simple. The federal government has accounted for 46% of the organization's funds for this year. [5] This is an extreme crisis of the organization. Here we must apply a key principle of Hayek's and it is that of "Creative Destruction" meaning that when an organization or jobs go under then new ones replace it and this leads rise to inovation, however, when the government steps in to give subsidies or protects the industry then this doesn't happen. I'll make this a conparision. Say a child, a company, makes a sand castle on a beach, when the child leaves then a wave will wash the beach and there is no longer a sand castle, the next day another child will come and make a sand castle and so forth, but when the government gets involved then there can be no new sand castles made and the old one does not get destroyed as it is suppose to. When there is no competition nor is there no risk to go under then the company has no reason to take risky jumps and innovate. Milton Friedman has shown this in his book, "Free to Choose," where when a company recieves a subsidy and has no risk it ruins innovation.




The second point here is that of funding itself. When we look at the federal government's subsidies then we can see that it is taking money away from their tax budget. Say an average person has $100, instead of buying some food they need they give $20 to charity and now they cannot afford to get food. (I realize that you can still buy fod with $80, but this is just an example.) This is called Oppertunist Cost. We can see that in this case that the federal government can easily give this subsidy money to another organization like NASA, DOT, or DOE. There are several areas of the government that could use some more money for improvement and giving this subsidy to Planned Parenthood takes away from that. [6] The other alternative here is that of saving money. The US debt is $18 trillion and climbing. [7] Not only that, but the US trade deficiet has been rising and that is something that the US needs to continiously prevent as the US is continously deficet spending. Even if we use the Keynsian model we can still see that in times of economic boom that the federal government should not defiet spending, but the US Federal government is on a kick to continously use deficet spending and has continued to do so for quite some time.

Contention 3: The "Abortion" Issue

Now I know I stated that this debate isn't about abortion, but this argument is about the Planned Parenthood videos and the federal laws on the topic. NOT about the morality of abortion itself.

are all awhere of the recent videos of Planned Parenthood, but there is some actual controversy that is LEGAL behind the issue. The first I would like to introduce you into the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde amendment prevents any federal funding for abortions or abortion clinics. It also outlaws those of low income on Medicade and Medicare from getting an abortion with that type of insurance agency. [8] It is also no secrete that Planned Parenthood is that of an abortion clinic as they even have their own page on the subject. [9] So how did this funding get through, it was actually part of the funding package that was so long that many Congressmen and women didn't have time to read it.

I will have to go into this last contention a litle more indepth next round, but I'm out of characters.



Sources
1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. (http://www.investopedia.com...)
5. "Government Funding for Planned Parenthood (10 Years) | Your Money | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2015.
6. "Chapter 2: The Effects of Subsidies." The Effects of Subsidies. Global Subsuidy Initiative, n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2015. <https://www.iisd.org...;.
7. (http://www.usdebtclock.org...)
8. (https://www.aclu.org...)
9. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org...)
Wylted

Con

My opponent is a conservative, I'm a conservative. I definitely understand the pro life stance, and in fact am pro life. By the end of this debate, my inention is to show people, that funding for planned parenthood is the pro life position, and it's something both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on.

At about 19 years old (I'm now 33), I had got my young girlfriend pregnant. (She was 18 at the time). We were both broke working at a fast food resteraunt, and we were also kinda naive and stupid, as are a lot of people that age. We had no ideal whatto do when she got those positive test results. The one thing we knew was that we were keeping the child. There was a planned parenthood in our community, and we got the bright ideal to go there. After all, planning parenthood, was certainly better than flying by the seat of our pants.

Would you believe it, when we pulled up to the planed parenthood, there were protestors outside, and I even think they yelled some stuff at us from the sidewalk. I thought to myslf, "who in the hell whould be opposed to people planning parenthood?". Anyway, we went inside the building and told the lady at the window, we were pregnant and had no ideal what to do. We need, some form of guidance. The lady gave Tracey (pregnant girlfriend) a pregnancy test, and she tested positive.

The place was extremely helpful. We got brochures to teach us about prenatal vitamins, among other things. The lady explained how to apply for WIC, so Tracey would get the proper nutrition to have a healthy birth. We learned about how to use her insurance to find a good OBGYN. Planned parenthood was a godsend for us, and I credit them for the reason we had a healthy 9 pound 6 ounce baby boy, with absolutely no problems. (despite Tracey's addiction to cigarrettes, which she never could fuly kick). It wasn't until years later we learned the place did abortions. I mean imagine that, we went there and got help and they never even told us about that option. I think our experience is probably a pretty normal one, meaning they are helping tons of families and young parents. I know space is at a premium and I used a bit, but that's okay.

Planned Parenthood prevents abortions

Me and Tracey despite being poor and stupid still were better off than a lot of Americans. Many other couples without the help of planned parenthood may have opted for an abortion. Planned parenthood doesn't actually recieve any federal funding for abortions, so the money doesn't realy go to that. in fact abortion only accounts for 3% of their services. A big portion of their services actually go to preventing unplanned pregnancies and by extention it prevents abortions. Below is a chart, where you can see what services will be getting less funding.

As you can see, my opponent is going to be pulling funding for things that prevent unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions, as well as pulling funding from cancer screenings and STD prevention.
According to the Guttmacher institute 345,000 abortions were prevented by planned parenthood in 2013 alone.
"Planned Parenthood is far and away the biggest provider in this space. Of the 6.7 million women who rely on public programs to pay for contraceptives, 2.4 million of them — 36 percent — do so at Planned Parenthood’s 817 clinics across the country…
By providing contraceptives to millions of low-income, American women, the Guttmacher Institute (a non-profit that supports abortion rights)estimates the Title X program prevented 345,000 abortions in 2013 alone."
http://www.alan.com...#
We don't know what the total number of abortions prevented is, but with that much effort going into sex education, (which has been proven to prevent pregnancy) and contraceptives, we know that the immoral practice of abortions is significantly less than what it would be without planned parenthood.


Funding planned parenthood just makes good economic sense

We kinda have to look at one issue at a time when it comes to creating policy. Reality tells us that we're not going to massively overhaul the system. That sort of thing would require a massive revolution, coup de taut or foreign invasion. All things which are incredibly immoral with a representative government.

What this leads us to, is looking at the impacts that planned parenthood funding is going to have on other issues. Once low income women have children, a lot of federal money is spent on them. WIC is heavily subsidized, food stamps, medicare and medicaid, schooling, free lunch program and a ton of other things that I could literally spend the rest of the debate listing off.
According to an article at the Roosevelt Institute;

"The Guttmacher Institute has found that for every dollar invested in family planning about four are saved. Why is that? Pregnancy is very expensive, as is raising a child, for women who can’t afford it. “There is no better preventative investment than family planning,” Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler says. After all, the cost burden shifts to the public sector for children who are born into poverty"

"But there’s another cost that all of us feel when women are denied access to family planning: “Women can’t do their jobs, create new jobs, or add to the country’s economic well-being if they can’t control their fertility,” she points out. Women make up nearly half of the workforce and help drive the U.S. economy. If we’re constantly at risk of becoming pregnant all the time, it is very difficult to do our jobs, particularly with the lack of social programs that benefit us or help with balancing work and family. “It’s as important a tool to us as education and health care,” she says"

You can take every single dollar my opponent wants to cut from planned parenthood and times that by 4 to determine the extra burden he wants to place on the shoulders of tax payers. The money given to planned parenthood through title X funding creates a better economy as well as saves the taxpayers an absurd amount of money.

conclusion

My facts are indisputable. Funding for planned parenthood actually decreases the abortion rate, it helps the economy, it saves the taxpayers lots of money and it's the right thing to do.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

I thank Con for sharing his heartfeld story and it really pulls on my heart strings to the point to where I really had to think if I could bring myself to respond to the debate and argue against his stories. I too share a similiar story, but I do not wish to disclose it publically. Anyways on to the debate. Unfortunately there's a mesh between the two argument's my opponent has made and since they're so intertwined I have to address them collectively.


My opponent begins this contention showing how the money is being spent and what operations and programs the companies do. I agree that Planned Parenthood does 3% total abortions, but that's not the reason that I oppose them. There have been many strange corrilations that have occured with Planned Parenthood. We all know that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, but let's take a look at their books when it has come to federal funding.

s://saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />

I don't know about you, but I find it quite shocking that nearly $1.3 billion of federal funding could just disappear like that. [1] Before you just dismiss this argument as just some crazy right winged nonsense we have to see that the sourcing of the GAO. Meaning that the federal government's watchdog agency has found that this agency has been misusing its money. Not only that, but there have been countless accounts of Planned Parenthood overcharging states and the federal government in order to get more funding for their clinic. There were even reports that they were over charging clients WAY more than average on a normal operation procedure. [2] Planned Parenthood has even gone out of control with many of their spending habits that the Texas Planned Parenthood has gone $1 million in debt. Not to mention that many of their own clinic leaders were fined money for violating keys campaign laws. In 2008, Cary Jennings violated this law in Texas by failing to disclose it's political contrabutions. To make matters worse those funds were embezzalment. [3] We can already see that apparently Planned Parenthood provides a lot more then just "Planning Parenthood." To further this we can see that they completely do not handle their own money wisely. According to Dian Harrison, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, announced that the company lost $2.8 million in revenue. The strange thing about this was that Panned Parenthood received a great deal of federal funding and they were reporting losses. To make matters worse we can see that 92% of their employees work at or bellow the poverty line which is shocking with the money that they are pulling in. [4][5]

Not let's move on to the funding and abortion itself.

s://saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />

I have already shown how Planned Parenthood is not trustworthy with a single penny of Federal Funding, but now I intend to continue to show how they are violating the Hyde Amendment. Once again, here is another graph from the GAO. It shows a direct corrilation between an increasing of federal funds and the increasing of abortions preformed. My opponent may point again to his graph showing that Planned Parenthood only does 3% of their total opperations in abortion, but we have to remember that they have a major transparency issue that the GAO has reported multiple times. Even in Kansas, a Kansas Supreme Court rages over Planned Parenthood creating over 100 false documents so they could preform illegal abortions. [6] In 2010, a similiar case occured in California where there was a case of multimillion dollar fraud case in which Planned Parenthood misused federal funding to artificially raise the price on birth control pills and the prices remain that way to this day. [7]



Here we can see that even though abortion is only 3% of their business operations we can see that it means a whole lot more than that. The graph you see above is their 2008 profit margins of abortion vs other types of businesses they offer. We can see that abortion is very profitable for them, so you can see that this is something that they would want to maximize and they have done this by going under the table. [8] We can see that this explains for a lot of the transparency and fraud and even some of their embezzlement issues. We see that since abortion isn't covered by Medicare that there are issues in the system and that it is more costly to get an abortion which hurts the clinic, but when that is worked around they can maximize profits. This is almost completely found true in the graph bellow. We can see that despite being all about "Planned Parenthood" it seems more likely than not that they try to prevent it more via abortions.




We cannot have another bad corrupt industry that is nearly more corruption than Boss Tweed's Tamney Hall and this completely demands defunding, but there are many other reasons as to why we should. As I brought up in my last round that we must stick to the Hayek model of "Creative Destruction." Not to mention that my opponent leaves out that there are plenty of other clinics out there that can easily fill this void left behind by Planned Parenthood and this would increase the incentive to continue innovation as I have brought up.


Sources
1. ( http://www.gao.gov...)
2. ( )
3. ( http://www.texaswatchdog.org...)
4. (http://www.washingtontimes.com...)
5. (http://www.lifeliberty.net...#)
6. ( http://www.mcclatchydc.com...)
7. ( http://aclj.org...)
8. ( http://www.lynnscatholictreasures.com...)
Wylted

Con

Well in a rush here, but not really much I can say since this round is only for revuttals, as per the rules.

Perfect duties

"P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties"


Without going any further, people should just dismiss Lannan's first contention. He never supports his first premise. If the first premise fails, than the entire syllogism fails. Beyond that he just completely misunderstands what Kant is saying with his arguments. You will not find Kant saying anywhere that the government or even people (and the argument is meant for personal ethics, not group ethics), should only perform perfect duties. In fact Kant actually states people should perform both perfect and imperfect duties.

Like my opponent says, you should always perform perfect duties. We don't have a disagreement there, but you should sometimes perform imperfect duties. Kant explains that you should sometimes perform imperfect duties. My opponent actually gives the beginning of the quote that confirms this, but I'll give the rest.

"imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form "One must sometimes and to some extent `6; in C". So, for instance, Kant held that the maxim of committing suicide to avoid future unhappiness did not pass the third step, the contradiction in conception test. Hence, one is forbidden to act on the maxim of committing suicide to avoid unhappiness. By contrast, the maxim of refusing to assist others in pursuit of their projects passes the contradiction in conception test, but fails the contradiction in the will test. Hence, we have a duty to sometimes and to some extent aid and assist others."
http://plato.stanford.edu...

If you want to apply Kant's philosophy to government, than you have to say that the government should sometimes perform imperfect duties. The only duties that should never be performed are ones that would not be considered imperfect or perfect duties.

My argument is that funding of planned parenthood is an imperfect duty, but one we should continue to perform. we should be consistent with Kant's philosophy and keep funding planned parenthood. My opponent seems to concede that funding of planned parenthood is an imperfect duty, but what he fails to realize Is that imperfect duties are things that should be done sometimes. This is one of those cases where we should perform it, as I have argued and given evidence for.

Moral Hazard

Sometimes I'm just bewildered by Lannan's arguments. They don't even seem applicable to the debate, and I'm not sure how to respond. The whole moral hazard argument seems to presuppose that Planned Parenthood is a for profit institution. Let me just inform him right now, that it's in fact a non profit. Planned Parenthood survives through donations and government subsidies.

The reason non profits don't apply to the argument my opponent made is not only because Hayek intended the argument for organizations that could be seen as "too big to fail", such as banks, the railroad or the auto industry. Charitable or non profit organizations that would not find any market incentive to exist don't apply. If you provide charity to organizations that feed the homeless, you don't harm the homeless feeding industry. There is no profit in feeding the homeless, so the principle of creative destruction doesn't apply. There simply isn't a profit for where the federal funding goes to planned parenthood. There isn't a market for giving away free birth control, educating teenagers on safe sex and STDs, providing free or close to it mammograms or many of the other services planned parenthood provides to people in poverty. Was there some sort of profit incentive to do these things, me and my opponent would be in agreement on this topic.

The Other Side of Hyde

This is another argument that is off topic by my opponent. The Hyde amendment in fact states that abortions are to receive no federal funding. However planned parenthood spends none of the federal funding it receives on abortion, but on many of the other services it provides for needy women. Services which in fact help prevent abortion as I've explained in the previous round.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his time for this debate, but unfortuantely he didn't understand some of my arguments so I will have to clarify a few things before this debate heads into the twilight.

Contention 1: Perfect Duties

My opponent claims that I have not supported my first contention, but that is completely false. We can see that this was provided in regards to my John Locke argument in this regards. I showed what a Perfect duty is that is that what protects the welfare of the people and ensures that the Social Contract is fully enforced. This escentially is that the government should protect it's citizens from themselves and foreign threats. [1]

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."- Thomas Jefferson

You have probably seen this quote many times before, although, not all the way through. This is a key thing about the change from the government in the 1800's to the government today. Jefferson understood that the government had no business interveening in the lives of the average citizen. We can see that the government was only meant to protect the citizens and interveen very little in the public soceity which is why the Founding Fathers made the Government system so complex.

We can both agree here that the funding of Public Funding of Planned Parenthood is indeed a Government business. Though one has to realize that the government offers many other programs on the same level from teaching abstinence to Sex education in schools. Now, more then ever, we have a large government and one that covers many things from the ACA. The ACA has began to force insurance companies to pay for contraceptions which is a key alternative to direct funding to Planned Parenthood. [2] We also cannot ignore the facts that I have brougth up last round that directly show that Planned Parenthood is detremental to soceity and not to mention that it mistreats their own employees. We cannot continue to fund an organnization that does these things and some how, in the wash of things, manages to loose $1.5 billion in federal funding. This is a key thing and these are key questions that we do not have the answers to and cannot fund an organization of this calliber.

Contention 2: Moral Hazard

My opponent does not seem to understand the key parts behind this argument. I realize that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit, however, there are many areas why this is a terrible and a Too Big to Fail industry. No it isn't Citi Bank nor General Motors, but it falls very close on the list. If you go out on the street and you ask any person, "Where can you get an abortion?" If you don't get assaulted by the Religious right chances are more likely then not you are going to hear Planned Parenthood. Now, there are tons of other abortion agencies out there, and yes I realize they offer more programs than just abortion, but the Left and most of soceity gives "special treatment" to Planned Parenthood. I know that they run off of donations, but they still make a good deal of money. I mean if you take a look at their website you can see plenty of ways they actually make money. [3]

As Planned Parenthood isn't a charity, but they try to make a decent amount of money. When they cannot make enough then they hold their hands out and ask for money. I have shown last round that much of their money grabbing has been very "shaddy" from loosing government funds to maltreatment of workers. While what they do, the services they provide, is very nobel, their financial actions are not mirrored. The key thing on why they are concidered "Too big to Fail" is that they are the top Reproductive organization out there. [4] Now, they do not have a monopoly on the system, but if that is said then what is preventing the federal government from funding NNAF or Women's Reproductive Rights Assistence Project? What makes Planned Parenthood different when these other non-profit organizations do the same exact thing? It is simply that the company is too big for the government to let it go under even with private donations, which even in the most cases are good enough. It is simply that the government has allowed the business to grow too large, but has failed to allow the "Creative Destruction" process to go through and allow other companies like WRRAP and NNAF to rise and be on the same level as Planned Parenthood was. I mean, you don't see the federal government giving money to the NFL's 60 minutes of play program or TARC, do you? Then if that's the case then why Planned Parenthood? Those other two organizations also provide key services.

Contention 3: The side of Hyde

My opponent states that I am off topic, but once again this is a key part in the debate of which I had to continue my ellaboration in my 3rd round. It was that of me having expose that Planned Parenthood's transparency is about as clear as mud. I have shown last round that not only have they "misplaced" $1.5 billion of Federal funding, but there have been several cases of which they have preformed illegal abortions and even falsified paper work to do these things. Do we know they are not suppose to do this by law? Yes, but are we sure they follow this law? No, with their past and the fact that they are extremely corrupt in that regards by even only paying their workers at or bellow the poverty line. That shocking number, 92%! [5]

As today's debate comes to a close we have to observe three key areas of analysis here: the duty of government, Planned Parenthood's actions, and Moral hazzard. We can see that Planned Parenthood has had a pretty shaddy business to the point where their transparency is about as clear as mud. We can see that not only do they mistreat their employees, but they constantly break the law and are caught misusing government funds. Why should we award companies that break the law and loose tax payers valuable money. I have shown that we can easily use it to fund something else or even give our tax payers a break and try to ballance the budget. We can also see that there are many other parenthood health agencies out there that are also non-profit and the government doesn't give them any special treatment. Planned Parenthood shouldn't be any different and should be defunded for the reasons that I have listed above and I have given proof throughout the debate.

I thank you for your time and ask that you please vote Pro.


Sources
1. (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...)
2. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org...)
3. ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org...)
4. ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org...)
5. ( http://www.washingtontimes.com...)
Wylted

Con

My opponent has violated the rules that he set for the debate, and I think the voters should punish him in the way he suggested, which is to award me all 7 points. I"ll get into that in a minute. Lannan is a good member of the site, and though he should automatically lose all 7 points, he deserves an explanation as to why, so anybody awarding me all 7, with no further explanation other than "rules broken", will be reported for vote bomb. With that being said, I do deserve all 7 points and here is why;

From Round one (please pay special attention to the underlined portions
"Rules
First Round is Terms and defintions by Pro, Acceptance by Con.
Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALS
Third Round is Rebuttals.
Forth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion.
No Semantics, the definitions provided are what is to be used in this debate
.No Trolling.
BOP is shared.
No K's.
If any of the above rules are violated, all 7 points go to the opposition.


The rule is that round 3 is for rebuttals and round 2 is for constructive arguments. My opponent has violated the rules by elaborating on his argument concerning the Hyde amendment in round 3. He deserves to lose every single point as a punishment for this. Now if you want to be really nice (and I don"t encourage this because Lannan is an experienced debater and knows better), I should still get conduct and argument points. There is no ifs ands or buts here also. My opponent"s expansion on the Hyde argument was not a part of his rebuttals, it"s literally an expansion on his opening argument. He"s had this debate in the challenge section for about 10 days and has had plenty of time to research and cut down on his arguments to fit in the allotted space.

From Round 2

"I will have to go into this last contention a litle more indepth next round, but I'm out of characters."

From Round 4

"My opponent states that I am off topic, but once again this is a key part in the debate of which I had to continue my elaboration in my 3rd round."

I"m sorry Lannan, you violated your own rules and deserve to lose, but for any judges not satisfied with that, I"ll continue.

Planned Parenthood Prevents Abortions

This section of the debate can be summed up with the following excerpt from Round 2;

"the Guttmacher institute 345,000 abortions were prevented by Planned Parenthood in 2013 alone.
"Planned Parenthood is far and away the biggest provider in this space. Of the 6.7 million women who rely on public programs to pay for contraceptives, 2.4 million of them " 36 percent " do so at Planned Parenthood"s 817 clinics across the country"

By providing contraceptives to millions of low-income, American women, the Guttmacher Institute (a non-profit that supports abortion rights) estimates the Title X program prevented 345,000 abortions in 2013 alone."


My opponent completely ignores this argument, failing to contest a single one of the arguments or statistics I cited. The impact here is clear and since it goes unrefuted it stands. 345,000 abortions prevented, because of all the help they provide low income women and families, such as myself and Tracey, and in some areas no alternatives exist for the services Planned Parenthood freely provides.

Good Economic Sense

I provided good economic arguments for Planned Parenthood, I"ll use an excerpt from round 2 for here:

"The Guttmacher Institute has found that for every dollar invested in family planning about four are saved. Why is that? Pregnancy is very expensive, as is raising a child, for women who can"t afford it. "There is no better preventative investment than family planning," Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler says. After all, the cost burden shifts to the public sector for children who are born into poverty"

"But there"s another cost that all of us feel when women are denied access to family planning: "Women can"t do their jobs, create new jobs, or add to the country"s economic well-being if they can"t control their fertility," she points out. Women make up nearly half of the workforce and help drive the U.S. economy. If we"re constantly at risk of becoming pregnant all the time, it is very difficult to do our jobs, particularly with the lack of social programs that benefit us or help with balancing work and family. "It"s as important a tool to us as education and health care," she says"


My opponent doesn"t respond to my arguments that funding Planned Parenthood saves a ton of money. He also drops my following point, which I think is important when evaluating any moral arguments from Lannan. If he drops the argument, than the judges should accept that the argument stands and take a close look at that.

We kinda have to look at one issue at a time when it comes to creating policy. Reality tells us that we're not going to massively overhaul the system. That sort of thing would require a massive revolution, coup de taut or foreign invasion. All things which are incredibly immoral with a representative government.

Conclusion

I won"t respond to any of my opponent"s counter rebuttals in the final round, because he can"t respond to mine, but I will like to go over a few important points I brought up in round 3, to show why Lannan lost this debate. ( in my opinion)

Perfect and Imperfect Duties

I"ve already explained the difference between perfect and imperfect duties, and how Kant specifically stated that perfect duties should always be performed and imperfect duties sometimes performed. Me pointing out that portion of Kant"s philosophy is enough to nullify Lannan"s first argument. He honestly fails to even qualify P1 as well.

" P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties."

Why Lannan? He never explains this. The categorical imperative he is using as a foundation for his argument even states this is wrong. The only time he bothers to defend P1 is with bare assertions, which are close to being incoherent. His argument has been refuted by Kant, because my opponent misunderstood Kant. To copy a part of the quote Lannan provides from Kant.

" while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form "One must sometimes and to some extent (perform)

Moral Hazard

Again, this argument is irrelevant to the debate. Subsidizing services to the poor for free, doesn"t hurt innovation. You only hurt innovation, when you subsidize things that are marketable. Though abortions are marketable, this isn"t what is subsidized by PP. What"s coming out of the tax payer"s wallet is stuff the poor isn"t buying, and therefore providing it does nothing to disincentivize anything going on in the market place. There is no market for telling a 14 year old girl to use protection avoid sex to prevent STDs. There is helping me and Tracey apply for Wic, learn how to use our insurance and give us the emotional support lacking in our families.

Voters

Voters, my opponent has violated his own rules. Contentions in round 3 that don"t qualify as rebuttals should be ignored, he should lose all 7 points. Even if he doesn"t lose all 7 points, due to your pity, he should still lose a conduct point and an argument point.

Lannan

Thanks for the debate Lannan. It was fun.
Debate Round No. 4
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
That's understandable and it paints a different light than what I initially got from the debate; which was you strategically pinning semantic arguments on him to win through technicalities.

But yeah, will post signups soon.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Stream of consciousness post. Take it, how it is. Contradictory thoughts and all.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Honestly F-16, if the judges think it's an abusive tactic, they should punish me for it, especially in a debate that isn't choose winner. I thought I was right, but the judges could change my mind, by punishing me. If I was a judge, I would've only given myself 3 points, but I write for the judges, not myself.

I thought about sending him a PM, to warn him about the potential rule violation, since he hinted at it in round 2, but didn't for some reason.

Lannan has beaten me twice because I've taken it easy on him. since then I've been trying to make it a point just to go for the Jugular in his specific case.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's the judges job to punish me, and since I was wrestling with myself in R2 whether to warn him in my argument or not and declined to warn him, I felt like it was too late to be nice.

I'll just reatate it here. I felt like it was wrong of me not to warn him in round 2. It was a decision I struggled with, but since I made it, I felt like there was no turning back. I made a cheap move, I admit it. I don't feel good about it, but at the same time, the judges should punish me for it. I would've punished myself by refusing to award any conduct points and if I was feeling particularly nasty, giving Lannan conduct points. However, there isn't much I can do now.

I can tell you, I was in a PM with Lannan just after this debate. He said he used the debate on his resume, which made me feel bad, and I apologized. I ish he would've told me that before the debate, I could have laid out my arguments differently to keep the debate close and give him arguments that are easier to respond to. It looks like he got the job anyway, so I don't feel too guilty. I don't feel like I sole a win here, so I don't feel guilty about that.

I'm really not sure what to do F-16. I know what you should do though.... Post the sign ups for your mafia game!
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
That just feels like abusing semantics.

The fourth round is for "rebuttals and conclusion" which means no new arguments but you brought one up anyways so semantically you are wrong. You just chose to bring it up at a time where he couldn't respond.

If he did call your complaint a violation in itself, it would have been ridiculous. No reasonable judge would buy it. But you went by the spirit of the rules, not the letter when it favored you (R4) but are falling back on the letter of the rules to explain why you didn't bring it up R3.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I felt like it would be a violation of the rules to bring it up in the same round, or atleast it could be argued it was. If you can only address round 3 in round 4, like was insinuated in round one by pro, he could have called that a violation and had the voters cancel out his misconduct with that.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Lannan may have violated the rules but Wylted wasn't a shining beacon of honorable conduct either. If the rule violation was in R3, why not bring it up in R3 and instead write only a passing remark that R3 is for rebuttals and *then* in R4, make a huge issue out of it when Lannan couldn't respond? You had the chance to go head-to-head with him on the rule violation.

Personally, I have a dim view of people using some type of semantics to win. I'd have looked at it more favorably if you both a) explained it in R3, and b) explain why it matters that his violation made it more difficult for you to get your point across. If it is just a technical, semantic violation which didn't affect your ability to debate, who cares?
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
@Whiteflame: Perhaps I will feel the same when I have the same debate experience.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I have to be honest, when I vote I don't take any rules set up by pro too seriously. I would've probably responded similarly to Whiteflame in that regard. I think debaters should be on even ground, and the pro side being able to set up the rules, hurts some of that even ground, so I only see them as an extremely rough guideline.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I wouldn't say that your vote was flawed simply because you went with the rules. It's a reasonable way to go. And I recognize that my perception of what's egregious may be different from someone else's, and thus result in different RFDs depending on the debate. But I think that just comes with the territory. It might be biased, but that bias is based off of debate experience, both on and off the site. Different experiences will inform what we deem to be reasonable for any point allocation.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Whiteflame: I understand your point on "egregious", but to me this logic can be influenced by one's own understanding of "egregious" and as such can be relative. I feel that in order for my vote to be consistent and seemingly unbiased, I need to evaluate each merit as an absolute. That's not to say that your judging is flawed, I think we each need to develop our own methodology (and this is perceivably allow by debate.org), but I did want to provide a reasoning behind my methodology since it is seemingly in contradiction.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
lannan13WyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
lannan13WyltedTied
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: Please see my RFD in the comments section.