The Instigator
tennis47
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Should we have abortions?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,469 times Debate No: 30018
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

tennis47

Con

Hi! The rules for this debate are: 1-no ranting, 2-only opinions, and 3- well, let's do this!

Thanks!
;)
wiploc

Pro

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
tennis47

Con

When you kill a child, whether it's in it's mother or not, its murder! How do you know that it's not going to be the next Shakespeare or a world leader or something?
wiploc

Pro

It confuses me when the instigator styles himself "Con," so I'll try to call him Firstguy. I'll call myself Secondguy. I'll try to end my posts with "Vote Pro," because that helps people keep us straight in light of the reversed names.

Firstguy issued the challenge and argued first: he has the burden of proof.

I'm going to try to articulate his claims for him, since he was cryptic and failed to relate his claims to the resolution. When I do this, when I try to state other people's claims for them, I do so with trepidation. It's so easy to get it wrong, to misstate what he other person intended to communicate. But, in this case, it is necessary for me to guess what Firstguy's points were, and what he thought they had to do with the resolution. All I can do is apologise in advance if I'm misinterpreting him. If I get it wrong, I'm not doing so on purpose, and I invite Firstguy to correct any errors.

Firstguy wrote:
: How do you know that it's not going to be the next Shakespeare or a world leader or something?

How should we interpret that? Here's my best shot:

1. You can't know in advance whether any potential child would be a net benefit to mankind.
2. Since you can't know, you should therefore reproduce at every opportunity.
3. This maximizes your chance of producing children who benefit mankind.
4. Therefore, since refusing to reproduce at every chance reduces your probable benefit to mankind, everyone should reproduce at every opportunity.
5. Having an abortion is a refusal to reproduce.
6. Therefore, having abortions (and chastity, birth control, and waiting until marriage) is morally wrong.

Again, I appologise if I made an error in my attempt to expand Firstguy's cripticness into an actual argument. Quite possibly, Firstguy wouldn't have applied the logic of his argument to chastity, birth control, and waiting until marriage. But the logic speaks for itself. If the thing that's wrong with abortions is that it reduces the number of Shakespeares we produce, then, if abortion is wrong for that reason, it follows that chastity, birth control, and waiting until marriage are also wrong.

If Firstguy wishes to distinguish abortion from chastity, birth control, and waiting until marriage, he's going to need another argument. "How do you know it isn't Shakespeare" isn't going to get him where he wants to go.

There are many other problems with this argument:

- Having kids when you don't want to reduces your quality of life.
- While having lots of kids increases your chances of producing a Shakespeare, it also increases your chances of producing a Hitler.
- The world is already overpopulated. If everybody had lots of kids in the hope of having a good one, the net benefit to society would be hugely negative.
- You are arguably more likely to produce a Shakespeare if you have only kids that you want, kids you are prepared to love and support.

Well, I'm going to stop there. Firstguy hasn't even made an argument yet, and he may not agree with the argument that I tried to make on his behalf. If he doesn't like my representation of his argument, he needs to come up with one for himself. As it stands, he has not met his burden of proof.

Firstguy's other argument goes like this:
: When you kill a child, whether it's in it's mother or not, its murder!

I particularly enjoy the exclamation mark. If we try to parlay this into an argument that relates to the resolution, we get something like this:

1. We agee that murdering a child is wrong.
2. Let us call PoCs (the products of conception) "children."
3. Let us call abortion "murder."
4. Therefore, per those definitions, abortion is the murder of a child.
5. Therefore, since we agreed that murder was wrong under the conventional definitions, we should also agree that it is wrong under these twisted definitions.
6. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Again, I apologize if I've misguessed Firstguy's implied argument. He didn't really state an argument, so I do have to guess. But I still don't want to misrepresent him. And, I see that I've build my rebuttal into the argument; he'd have phrased it differently. But I' hope I've captured his intent. If not, he is free to articulate his own arguments rather than putting me to the guess.

I'll agree with P1, but not with P2 and P3. Granting P2 and P3 would make P1 false. If we called PoCs "children" and abortion "murder," then there'd no longer be any reason to assume that "murdering children" was wrong.

If you change definitions to incorporate new items, you don't get to assume the newly incuded items are in the same category as the old. The fact that I like to eat chocolate doesn't mean I like to eat chocolate labradors.

It's true that PoCs are in some ways like children, but so are gametes. So, using Firstguy's logic, we could conclude that chastity, contraception, and waiting for marriage are also murder. Or murder!

Firstguy has not met his burden of proof on either argument.

Vote Pro. (I'm Pro, even though I'm arguing second.)












Debate Round No. 2
tennis47

Con

Dramatic sigh. Dude, I'm a girl.
**************
"Firstguy issued the challenge and argued first: he has the burden of proof."

Actually, you have the burden of proof to tell me why we should have abortions, and I'm supposed to battle you.
***************
"I'm going to try to articulate his claims for him, since he was cryptic and failed to relate his claims to the resolution. When I do this, when I try to state other people's claims for them, I do so with trepidation. It's so easy to get it wrong, to misstate what he other person intended to communicate. But, in this case, it is necessary for me to guess what Firstguy's points were, and what he thought they had to do with the resolution. All I can do is apologise in advance if I'm misinterpreting him. If I get it wrong, I'm not doing so on purpose, and I invite Firstguy to correct any errors."

Dude, speak english! Not geek-who-probably-reads-the-dictionary-every-day glish!
****************
"- While having lots of kids increases your chances of producing a Shakespeare, it also increases your chances of producing a Hitler.
- The world is already overpopulated. If everybody had lots of kids in the hope of having a good one, the net benefit to society would be hugely negative.
- You are arguably more likely to produce a Shakespeare if you have only kids that you want, kids you are prepared to love and support."

I wasn't saying that you should have lots of kids in order to try and produce a Shakespeare, I was saying that you shouldn't kill unborn children, because for all you know, they're going to be someone who fights against injustice, like Martin Luther King jr, or Rosa Parks.
***************

Happy Valentines Day, guys!

;)
wiploc

Pro

: Dramatic sigh. Dude, I'm a girl.

Sorry. On the internet, gender isn't obvious. My appologies for not checking yours.


: Actually, you have the burden of proof...


She issued the challenge, and she argued first. She has the burden of proof. But now, in round three, she wants to shift the burden of proof to me? That doesn't work. If you want to shift the burden of proof to the responder, you need to have the responder argue first; and you also need to make it perfectly clear in your opening post that you are assigning the BoP to the other party. That way, when Secondguy accepts the debate challenge, he will be contractually accepting the shifted burden. You can't just decide late in the debate to shift the burden.

Did Firstguy assign me the burden of proof in round one? Let's look at our agreed terms:
: Hi! The rules for this debate are: 1-no ranting, 2-only opinions, and 3- well, let's do this!
No, she absolutely did not shift the burden to Secondguy.

She issued the challenge, and she argued first. She has the burden of proof. She has undertaken to prove that we should not have abortions.

What are her arguments so far? She's made no actual arguments, but she did make two undefended claims:

1. Something cryptic about embrios being potential Shakespears.

2. Something cryptic about murdering children inside their mothers.

I tried to guess what her unstated arguments were, how she would defend those claims and relate them to the resolution if she spoke geek-who-probably-reads-the-dictionary-every-day-eese (please, not geek-who-probably-reads-the-dictionary-every-day glish).

I thus went to the trouble of building her case for her. And I invited her to correct my assumptions or build her own case. She did neither. She specifically rejected her first claim, the one about Shakespears:

: I wasn't saying that you should have lots of kids in order to try and produce a Shakespeare,

but then, in the same sentence, she reintroduced the same cryptic claim, but changed "Shakespeare" to other examples:

: I was saying that you shouldn't kill unborn children, because for all you know, they're going to be someone who fights
: against
injustice, like Martin Luther King jr, or Rosa Parks.

So, she has dropped her second claim, that abortion is murder. The only reason we "shouldn't kill unborn children" is that we might get some good out of them if we didn't kill them.

Instead she relies entirely on the first claim, that we should have babies who might do good in the world.

Note that she still hasn't defended this claim. She made no effort to distinguish abortion from contraception, chastity, or waiting until marriage. By her logic, if abortion is wrong, then those other things are also wrong.


This is round three. Next comes round four, the final round. So far, she has made two claims, repudiated one, dropped the second one, and reintroduced the first one using a different exemplar (Rosa Parks instead of William Shakespeare). She has made no arguments at all. And you cannot introduce new arguments in the final round.

She started this debate, but she has refused to actually debate. She never met her burden of proof, and now her opportunity to do so has expired.

She never disputed my objections to her claims; by dropping those arguments, she has effectively conceded that her two claims are wrong.

Please extend my arguments.

Vote Pro (I'm Pro, even though I'm arguing second.)

















Debate Round No. 3
tennis47

Con

Abortion is murder. Done.
wiploc

Pro

I don't think abortion is murder.

Firstguy, apparently, thinks it is.

Why does she think it is? She won't say.

She started a debate on the subject, undertaking to prove that abortion is murder, but then kept her reasoning secret.

We don't know why she thinks abortion is murder. She won't say.

She started this debate, but then refused to actually debate.

When asked to justify her claim, she just repeats it. That is not in the least persuasive.

She has not argued, has not tried to be persuasive. She has effectively forfeited this debate.

She has the burden of proof but has not performed.

-

Extend my arguments.

-

Vote Con. (I'm Con, even though I'm arguing second.)



Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
"Dude, I'm a girl." - you know they have female avatars, right?
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
We all have our off days. Yep, "Abortion is murder. Done." is not going to help much towards meeting the burden of proof.
Posted by zgb1997 4 years ago
zgb1997
BTW.
"Abortion is murder. Done."

This is so wonderful...it's almost as good as the "it says so in the Bible" argument...I just can't stop marvelling at the intellect behind this argument.
Posted by zgb1997 4 years ago
zgb1997
Con, you cannot blame pro for your poor knowledge of the english language. If you wish to debate on this website, you must have an understanding which reaches beyond your every-day vocabulary.
Posted by alfo149 4 years ago
alfo149
Love how Pro is being gentlemanly and trying to help out Con even though they are "dukeing it out". Nonetheless Con has decided to ignore and yet chide Pro's help. The wait is strangling me!
Posted by zgb1997 4 years ago
zgb1997
Pro's response was well-written and thoroughly enjoyable.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Great argument by Pro. Really great closer - "Vote Pro" - how can you argue with that?! :P
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by t-man 4 years ago
t-man
tennis47wiplocTied
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: clear win for Pro
Vote Placed by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
tennis47wiplocTied
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: Pro's argument was well constructed while Con's was scant and fallacious.
Vote Placed by thedebatekid 4 years ago
thedebatekid
tennis47wiplocTied
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: It is to my knowledge that the instigator has the BOP. Therefore I give my conduct to Wiploc. Pro obviously made a more convincing argument so he gets my point there as well.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
tennis47wiplocTied
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: I agree wholeheartedly with Pro. However, Con had the much stronger case. Con, unfortunately, made her argument with not one, but two separate logical fallacies, and Pro showed the error in her arguments. I also give conduct to Pro, since Con really didn't make much of an argument, and tried to shift the burden of proof (which was Con's) to Pro.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
tennis47wiplocTied
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: As the instigator--the one who sets the terms--tennis47 had the burden of proof unless she were to specify otherwise in the terms of the debate, which she did not. She did not prove "Abortion is murder." She made two arguments to support that claim. "Suppose they were Shakespeare / Rosa Parks" was destroyed by wiploc. It's murder was unsubstantiated. Thus, arguments to wiploc. Conduct to wiploc, too, for debating in earnest.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
tennis47wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Is an RDF even necessary?