The Instigator
ArcTImes
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

WODC: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

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 12 votes the winner is...
ArcTImes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,864 times Debate No: 59230
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (12)

 

ArcTImes

Pro

Introduction

This debate is part of the larztheloser's World Online Debate Cup.

Resolution

Pro's contention is that Voluntary Abortion should be legal.


Definitions

Voluntary Abortion:

The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy (of a female human being). [1][2]

Legal:

permitted by law. [3]

Rules

• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.
• 8k characters max. per round.
• 4 rounds.
• 48 hrs.
• 7 point system.
• 7 days voting period.

Sources

1. http://www.medterms.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

I accept.

I wish luck to my opponent and I would like to say: Edeb8 for the win. :)
Debate Round No. 1
ArcTImes

Pro

Introduction

I thank my opponent, SPENCERJOYAGE14(Rebekah) for accepting this debate. I also wish her good luck in this debate and the rest of the tournament.
I will use this round to present my arguments for the legalization of voluntary abortion.

Arguments

1. The bodily rights' argument

I consider this to be the best argument for the legalization of voluntary abortion because it excludes irrelevant little discussions that tend to be ambiguous around the debate.
The bodily rights argument states that the violation of the woman's bodily rights is unethical and intrusive.
Legal and safe abortions ensures these rights giving women an option to control their bodies.
This argument alone is enough to prove that voluntary abortions should be legal.



-The bodily integrity

This is the inviolability of the physical body and gives huge importance to the control and self determination of the own body.
This is related to the debate of abortion because illegal abortion would mean that women are forced to continue their pregnancies and deliver the child, always. In other words, women have to donate their womb for 8-9 months even if they don't want to.

This is against their bodily rights and the concept of bodily integrity.
Every woman has the right to chose what to do with her own body and have others respect this bodily autonomy.

-Abortion as a reproductive right

Reproductive and sexual rights are heavily related to the bodily rights because it helps ensure the control of the body related to reproduction. Women are able to decide the number, spacing and timing of their children.
If abortion is illegal, women would be deprived of these rights that are fundamental in a modern society.

Now, I'm not trying to say that this is the only way woman can control this.. It helps ensure the full control of it.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

-Beginning of life or personhood is irrelevant to the debate


The beginning of life and/or personhood is definitely an interesting topic that is as controversial as this debate, but it is not relevant because the bodily rights should be respected, "even" by alive persons.
This is important to note because this is a part of a common argument against abortion and the ability to choose and control the woman's own body.

The argument of the bodily rights does not imply that the fetus or the embryo is a blob or part of the woman's body. We can hypothetically replace the fetus with an adult and alive human being. No one should be forced to donate his body to this person, even if his live is in danger. In other words women should not be forced to continue a pregnancy (donate her womb) to the fetus, even if this is alive/human/person.

This is usually addressed with an analogy for easy understanding. Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote a philosophy essay called "A Defense of Abortion" in 1971. Here is an analogy from the paper:

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."


Even though the analogy seems extreme and unlikely to happen, the situation is pretty similar to what happens in a pregnancy.
A woman can volunteer and donate her womb, and that's exactly what women that want to be mothers do, but they should not be forced to.
Remember that the analogy is not perfect. The analogy is only used for easy understanding so I ask Con to address the argument directly and not the analogy.

For this reason the argument of life and personhood is irrelevant to the discussion of legalization of abortion and there is no need to suffer trying to answer these questions that have no exact answer in science.

-Parental responsibility is irrelevant to the debate

This is another common argument against the legalization of abortion.
It attacks the idea of bodily rights implying that the woman has parental responsibility for the fetus.
This begs the question because this assumes exactly what's trying to prove.

At the end, abortion is a way a woman abdicate her parental rights and take responsibility of her actions or the situation she is in.
For that reason, parental responsibility is also irrelevant to the debate.

-No, it's not murder

A common rebuttal is that the bodily rights' argument is not an excuse to murder someone else. Some people claim that you may have the option to donate an organ, but you should not kill another person just because he needs you.

This is a clear misunderstanding of what abortion is. And it's really common to see phrases like "abortion is murder" because of this misunderstanding.
Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, it is not about killing fetuses. There are forms of abortions that are practiced with the intention of maintain the fetus alive and deliver the baby. The caesarean section is a form of late term abortion and most of the cases the fetus lives.
The fact that the fetus dies in most of abortions is because it can't live on its own.


2. Making voluntary abortion makes the procedure safer

This is just a plus to the bodily rights' argument to show that there is no reason for abortion to be illegal.
Abortion is a safe medical procedure if it's done properly.
This can only be ensured if abortion is legal.

-Illegal abortion won't stop abortions

Women try to get abortions, even if this is illegal. For example, abortion used to be illegal in the US. Untrained "doctors" and conditions without medical standards were common characteristics of illegal abortion. Inducing own abortions were common too.

This conditions didn't stop women to get these abortions.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year only in the US. [1]



-Making abortion illegal endangers women's health

Making abortion illegal is a barrier to accessing safe abortion services and endangers women's health.
Before making abortion legal an estimate of 5000 women died each year because of unsafe abortions in United States only. [2]
Illegal abortion is still the leading cause of maternal death. 47000 women die each year because of this around the world. [3]



-Surgical abortion is a safe medical procedure

When abortion is practiced by a trained person, the procedure is safe with little to no risk.
Specially compared to procedures in countries where abortion is illegal.
It's complications are less serious than those related to giving birth. [4]

Conclusion

Pro has presented a compelling case for the legalization of Voluntary abortion.
The arguments were related to the bodily integrity of women and the safety of abortion in the world.

I await for Con's rebuttals and arguments.

Thanks. Vote PRO.

Sources

1.
http://www.guttmacher.org...
2. http://www.who.int...
3. http://whqlibdoc.who.int...
4. http://www.reuters.com...

SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

Before I bring up some of my own points and refute some of ArcTlimes's points I would like to create a analogy.

"Gov. Deval Patrick announced Friday he’s proposed two locations in Massachusetts to temporarily shelter unaccompanied children who crossed the southern border into the U.S. illegally. While staying in the facility, the children will be processed by immigration officials for deportation, reunification or asylum. They’re drawn by rumors that once here, they can stay."

A group of friends and I sat around a bonfire and discussed the issue of the illegals being invited into the US and we were talking about how to deal with them.

The choices were:

-Allow them to stay in the Gov. funded camps until they're ready to go on their own.

-Deport them back to their home land

-Deport them back to their families

-Kill them

This is somewhat like what conception is. I know it sounds crazy, so bear with me.

A unborn baby is like the illegal immigrant children in my analogy, but in her case she was forced to be there by ether failed contraception or negligence. It wasn't of her choice to be conceived but of her mother and father's bad choices.

Now we all remember what president Obama said:


The baby has been allowed, forced, or negligently conceived and now there is a issue.

What do we do?

It's most logical to have a punishment for your actions. Being embarrassed, feeling shame? That's normal when it comes to mistakes. Being inconvenienced? Also normal.

The women has every right to be punished for her mistakes, but her son or daughter? No, they should not be punished. 98% of women abort because they don't want a kid or because it's a inconvenience to be pregnant.




We have two choices, be mature about our mistakes and take the punishment for our actions by allowing the baby we made to stay in our body for the 8 or 9 months until they are able to survive outside the womb and then give them up to adoption. Or, we can punish her for our mistakes and our inconvenience by riping her up and flushing her out of the womb.



We should not be giving innocent babies a punishment that they don't deserve.

On to refuting:

The Body Rights Argument

Having control of your body does not mean having control of another human being's body.

Let's look at this picture:


As you can see the women is in charge of her body, she can do what she wants with it, she just can't do whatever she wants with another human being's body. It's not her body, it's not her choice. We need to make the distinction that there are two bodies that we are talking about and two people's rights to choose.


Let's talk about a women's bodily rights.


The right to life supersedes the right to not be pregnant. If you've made a mistake that causes another human being to be conceived, her right to life is more valuable then your right to not be pregnant.

There are many rights you have with your body:

Abstinence. You have every right not to have sex. This is one of the best ways to make sure you won't get pregnant.

Birth control pill. You have every right to be on birth control so that you don't get pregnant.

Condoms. This is also a right that you have, you have a right to use condoms (male and female) so that you have a huge barrier to make sure you don't get pregnant.

Those are just three things you can do, while there are many more I'll wait until my third round to bring them up.


Choices are not a good premise.
People with Pro-Abortion mindsets believe that women should have the choice to be in charge of her own body, and I agree with that. Women have every right to choose to be on birth control, use condoms, or practice abstinence. But I'm here today not to argue that women should be able to make choices about her body, I'm here to argue for those who don't have voices, for those who cannot choose life for themselves.

Personhood needs to stay in this debate. My opponent would like to dismiss the fact that every abortion kills a innocent human being and the fact that the differences between unborn babies and adults are differences of degree of development and not of kind. But I would ask that these important mindsets stay in this debate. We need to remember that abortion is the killing of innocent children who did not make a mistake, and that adults and unborn babies are the same thing, humans.



The argument of the violinist.
I understand that my opponent would like me to ignore his analogy but I find two major flaws with this analogy.

-This analogy is assuming that when you have sex you do not know there are possibilities of becoming pregnant.
-There were absolutely no choices made on your part, this analogy makes sex look like every single women is being rapped.

I'm not going to go into detail on those flaws, if asked to by ArcTlimes I will, but my points still stand.

Donating your womb is not a choice to be made after you conceive, it is a choice to be made before you have sex. If you are not ready to become pregnant then you should abstain. It's that simple.

-Illegal abortion won't stop abortions. Prior to abortion's legalization, 90% of abortions were done by doctors, not by "coat hangers in back alleys."

[People] justify abortion on the claim that if it is outlawed, women will abort anyway and may die in the process. There problems with this hypothesis. First, it doesn't address that [it’s not a mother’s choice]. Second, laws against abortion would deter most women from having one. Third, there is no evidence that illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal abortions. Of course, even if the "coat hanger" argument was true (it's not), then it's still morally ridiculous to legalize procedures that kill innocent babies just to make the killing procedures less dangerous to the mother.

Fifteen years before abortion was legal in America, around 85 percent of illegal abortions were done by:

"Reputable physicians in good standing in their local medical associations."



Now that I refuted some of my opponent's arguments I will make my own.

Argument 1: Every abortion kills a innocent human being.

"There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy...There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole." -Bernard Nathanson

Argument 2: Beginning at conception, every pregnancy involves two or more bodies.
The slogan, "My Body, My Choice," betrays a tragic misunderstanding of what is taking place inside the womb. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Argument 3: It is just, reasonable, and necessary for society to outlaw certain choices.

"Whenever we hear the term pro-choice, we must ask the all-important question, “What choice are we talking about?” Given the facts about abortion, the question really becomes, “Do you think people should have the right to choose to kill innocent children if that's what they want to do?" "

"The only way people can successfully live together in community is to give up a measure of personal freedom. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. Nobody argues that a man should be free to choose when the context is sexual assault. What a fool he would be to try and justify rape by saying, "My body, my choice." "

Argument 4: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant.

Argument 5: “Unwantedness” does not morally justify abortion.

Argument 6: Abortion is more dangerous than childbirth.

Due to lack of space I will bring up more points in my third round.

[1] http://boston.cbslocal.com...

[2] https://bound4life.com...

[3] http://www.abortionfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ArcTImes

Pro

Introduction

I want to thank Con for her rebuttals.
Now I will present my own and show why voluntary abortion should be legal.

Rebuttals

The mistakes' argument

This is how I called the first paragraphs of Con from the analogy to her arguments about how mistakes can be punishable. but if one has not made a decision, there is no mistake and there should not be any punishment.

In summary, she implies that the fetus is being punished for the mistake of the woman. But this begs the question. First, there are a lot of cases that can't be considered caused by mistakes of the woman. Second, this also implies that abortion is murder, which is also false.

Abortion is defined as the (premature) termination of a pregnancy. In other words, the fact that the fetus dies is just a fact of nature, and not caused by any way by the mistakes of the woman, in any case of abortion.

Con here presents one of the methods used for abortions in her try to prove abortion is murder. I want Con to compare this method with the fact of nature I mentioned in the last paragraph. What I mean is that it is in no way better to make a C-section to the woman. to remove the fetus without killing it just so it dies naturally outside of the woman. Con needs to understand that abortion is not murder. The fetus would die anyway, even if that method is not used.

I already addressed this in my last round, but my opponent still claims abortion is murder without addressing my points.

The bodily rights' argument

Here Con attacks the argument claiming that a woman doesn't have control of the bodies of other people, and I agree. But it fails as a rebuttal because the woman is not doing anything with the body of the fetus. The bodily rights of the fetus are not being affected by the abortion, nor his rights to life.

Abortion is the (premature) termination of a pregnancy, in other words, a doctor could practice a c-section to a woman, remove the fetus before viability and don't touch it anymore, and it will still be an abortion.
So abortion is no wrong per se, and it's not murder. It doesn't affect the bodily rights of the fetus and it doesn't affect his right to life either.

This argument doesn't even touch the issue of life or personhood because it is irrelevant, but it would not change anything if we gave the fetus all the rights of a person.

Then Con claims that the right of life supersedes the right to not be pregnant. If "not being pregnant" endangers the life of the woman, then there is no reason not to be pregnant. This is also a point I already addressed in my last round. Abortion doesn't affect the rights of the fetus.

Con ends proposing more methods to avoid pregnancies. Sadly, there is still a lot of cases with secure sex that ended in pregnancies and abstinence is not a solution because the consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. It's easy to see, if you took away one of those others methods, that would go against the reproductive rights of women. Same with abortion.

Personhood issue

In my last round I presented some reasons about why personhood is irrelevant to the debate. Here my opponent claims that personhood is indeed relevant and she gave some reasons.

She claims that I want to dismiss the fact that every abortion kills an innocent human being. First, the reason I mention that the personhood issue is irrelevant is because we could give all the rights of a person to the fetus and the argument of bodily rights would still stand. Second I already addressed that abortion is not murder. It's not like I want no one to notice about it. There is no reason to consider the fetus a person, but it doesn't matter. Let's give it the rights anyway.

And I don't want Con to ignore the analogy. I want her to address the argument directly. The analogy was a tool for easy understanding. I see that it didn't work because Con still wants to discuss the issue that the fetus is a person and still claims that abortion is murder.

The analogy is a tool to understand that even if the fetus had all the rights of a person, it would not have the right to use the body of the woman.

She now claims 2 major flaws in the analogy.
The first one is totally false. When a person has sex, there is a lot of things that could happen, pregnancies, STD, etc. Consent to sex doesn't mean one wants or embrace those scenarios. It's illogical. Abortion is a way to take responsibility of the situation you are in, but it's in no way related to consent to pregnancy.
The second one is the same issue than the last. It's assuming that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

I would like Con to elaborate on the analogy if she wants. Again, I don't consider an analogy perfect, there is always issue and limits, but those should be addressed separately and may not be addressed with the analogy.

Security of abortions

Now Con addressed my arguments on security. She starts claiming that illegal abortions are practiced by doctors with no sources and no justification. Her source is not reliable. The source mentions some quotes about how there is no evidence even though I presented sources and evidence that shows otherwise. [2][3] Studies show that outlawing abortion does little to deter women seeking it. [1]


The restrictions made women look for other options, untrained practitioners, and they even practiced their own abortions. I showed that it is still happening in countries where abortion is illegal. There is no reason to deny that reality.
[2][3]



And this is a part of a bigger argument. I'm not claiming abortion should be legal because there would be abortions anyway. It's part of the argument of security which only works if there are abortions when it's illegal.

Argument 1: Every abortion kills an innocent child

Here Con tries to present her own case for the criminalization for abortion.
Her first argument is that abortion is murder. I presented a rebuttal for this in my last round already. And it was not addressed.

Argument 2: Beginning at conception, every pregnancy involves two bodies

I already presented reasons on why personhood is irrelevant, but Con still feels the need to make a claim like that. There is no evidence that life (of a human being) starts at conception. You have different sciences disagreeing on this topic. Genetics agrees that life starts at conception, but sciences like Embryology or Neurology disagree with that. Science has no exact answer to this question.

I really don't need to discuss the issue of life, but I think this is important and makes Con's case weaker.
Beginning of life is irrelevant because Pro can give the fetus all the rights of a person, but the fact that there is no proof of the claim makes Con's case weaker.
And personhood makes it way weaker than that.



Argument 3: It is just to outlaw certain choices

Here Con implies that the only reason I claim abortion should be legal is because there would be a choice.
This is false. The bodily rights are necessary in a modern society. The choice is related to having a baby, not to killing it. So a choice is necessary then.
And legal abortion is necessary because it would be giving special rights to the fetus.

Argument 4: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant

This was already addressed. It was even worded in the same way.

Argument 5: “Unwantedness” does not morally justify abortion

I will wait for the actual argument.

Argument 6: Abortion is more dangerous than childbirth

I will wait for Con's actual argument, but I hope she presents reliable sources this time, from actual scientific papers and not unreliable site that recycles claims.

Conclusion
  • I thank Con for her rebuttals and arguments.
  • Con was not able to address Pro's arguments properly.
  • Pro showed that abortion is not murder and that personhood is irrelevant to the debate which are huge part of all the arguments and rebuttals of Con.

Sources

1. http://www.nytimes.com...
2. http://www.who.int...
3. http://whqlibdoc.who.int...
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

I will move onto my refutations…
“she implies that the fetus is being punished for the mistake of the woman. But this begs the question. First, there are a lot of cases that can't be considered caused by mistakes of the woman. Second, this also implies that abortion is murder, which is also false.”

Abortion is wrong; it ends the life of a baby that has no choice in the matter. The baby should not be killed for the mistakes of the mother or father, the fault of the contraception, or even in cases of rape.


“the fact that the fetus dies is just a fact of nature, and not caused by any way by the mistakes of the woman, in any case of abortion.”

The fact that the baby dies is because of abortion, now in some abortion cases like the C-section the baby is not killed in the process of terminating the pregnancy which is a great thing. I personally was born using the C-section due to some pregnancy complications and I’m a healthy little girl. But I’m not saying that all abortions should be illegal, just the abortions that terminate the life of a baby (when the abortion is not to save the life of the mother).

“my opponent still claims abortion is murder without addressing my points.”

Actually, going back through my arguments I have not once claimed that abortion is murder. I’ve always said something to the extent that abortion is killing a baby, or abortion is ending the life of a human being. Which, in fact is true. I also said that I would be addressing some of your points then and some later because of lack of character count.


“The bodily rights of the fetus are not being affected by the abortion, nor his rights to life.” It would be great if Pro could explain how the baby’s right to life has not been affected by abortion. As I’ve said, the types of abortion that should be illegal are the types that terminate the life of a baby. I don’t understand how terminating someone’s life does not affect their right to life. So yes, it would be great to clear up my lack of understanding.



“Abortion doesn't affect the rights of the fetus.” I would like to remind Pro that abortion doesn’t always affect the baby’s right to life, in the one example of the c-section, but a huge majority of the time it does affect the baby’s right to life.

“It's easy to see, if you took away one of those others methods, that would go against the reproductive rights of women.” My opponent is implying that the right to not be pregnant is more important than the right to life. In my case I’m saying we should ban things that terminate human life, condoms don’t do that nor does birth control, which gives us no reason to ban those.

“When a person has sex, there is a lot of things that could happen, pregnancies, STD, etc. Consent to sex doesn't mean one wants or embrace those scenarios. It's illogical.”

I would like to remind him that I never said, Consent to sex = consent to becoming pregnant. I said, “This analogy is assuming that when you have sex you do not know there are possibilities of becoming pregnant.” I’d like to ask my opponent to not change the meaning of my words or points because that is bad conduct. If you go back and read my argument carefully you will notice that I never said consent to sex equals the consent to pregnancy.

“She starts claiming that illegal abortions are practiced by doctors with no sources and no justification.” I cited Alfred Kinsey, a biologist, professor of entomology, zoology, and a sexologist.

“Her source is not reliable.” At the bottom of the page my source sources many credible people like other popular websites. So yes, my site is credible in getting information from other credible websites.


“The restrictions made women look for other options, untrained practitioners, and they even practiced their own abortions. I showed that it is still happening in countries where abortion is illegal.” Only ten percent of women in the world were having abortions by coat hangers, 85% of women were having abortions take place by “Reputable physicians in good standing in their local medical associations.” And only 5 percent of women were having abortions by super untrained practitioners. But also, a lot less abortions took place saving a lot more babies lives.


Argument 1: Every abortion kills an innocent child

“Here Con tries to present her own case for the criminalization for abortion.
Her first argument is that abortion is murder. I presented a rebuttal for this in my last round already. And it was not addressed.”

No, my argument was “Every abortion kills a innocent child” I did not bring up murder. Now, I’ve noticed that every time I mention something like this my opponent edges around it. I’d like him to please respond to this.

I will be dropping my 2nd argument because my opponent didn’t understand it and due to lack of time on my part I cannot re explain it.


Argument 3: It is just to outlaw certain choices

“Here Con implies that the only reason I claim abortion should be legal is because there would be a choice.” No, I merely implied this is one of the reasons people choose to keep abortion legal.

I will drop my last arguments because
my time and character limit seems to be up.

I brought up no new sources.

Debate Round No. 3
ArcTImes

Pro

Introduction

I thank Con for her rebuttals.
I will now present my own.

Rebuttals

1. Mistake's argument

Now Con just implies that abortion is wrong because "it ends the life" of the fetus. She didn't address any of my rebuttals of the argument or the murder issue. Then she accepts that she doesn't accept abortion, not even in cases of rape.

Then Con implies that abortion is the direct cause of the death, even after I showed cases of abortion where it doesn't happen. And I also asked if it was a good idea to make a(n unnecessary) c-section to the woman and let the fetus die on his own.

2. Bodily rights

Con seems not to understand the bodily rights' argument. Imagine two people, two adult living human beings. If person A needs a donation to survive, he can't force person B to donate his organs, his body, etc. But in no case B is killing A or affecting his right of life. Now in the case of abortion, the fetus has only one possible donor. If this possible rightly refuses to donate, then the fetus will die no matter what. This is not killing the fetus.
Abortion never affects the right of life of a fetus.

3. Abortion as reproductive right

Here Con continues with her arguments of murder without addressing my arguments and rebuttals. I never implied that the right "not to be pregnant" is more important than the right to life. Remember that abortion never affects the right to life of anyone. Abortion is just refusing to make a donation, which is just.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Sadly, if you don't believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, your argument has no grounds. I never tried to change your words, I just tried to represent what I understood about your point in the best way possible. Consent of "the possibility of pregnancy" doesn't make abortion wrong. Abortion is taking responsibility of the situation.

4. Security

Con claims that her sources are reliable because it has sources on it. Sorry, but that's not how sources work. I showed sources that anyone can read directly from the paper. Con is presenting a biased site with sources that I cannot read. There is no reason to believe Con got the data from other place than the biased site. And even if it was reliable, the source is only showing quotes in literature. I showed studies from respectable sources that contradict the quotes of some books I can't read.
And the most important part is that it's still happening.


5. "Argument 1"

Here con implies that "abortion kills an innocent child" doesn't mean that abortion is not murder. Abortion is not a person, so Con is basically saying that the one that practice the abortion is killing an innocent child using abortion, which is false. Abortion is not the termination of the fetus. If the doctor terminates the pregnancy and doesn't kill the fetus, it will still be an abortion. Con is against killing the fetus, not abortion. She is doing another debate, not this one.

After that Con drops all her other arguments.

Conclusion

Con was not able to rebut properly Pro's arguments.
The summary of Con's argument is "Abortion kills a child and that's wrong".
Pro rebutted Con's argument(s) and presented a solid case for the legalization of voluntary abortion

Thanks for the debate. Vote Pro.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

  1. 1. Mistake's argument

    “Now Con just implies that abortion is wrong because "it ends the life" of the fetus.”

I’ve notice that throughout this whole debate my opponent has been ignoring and putting off this extremely important argument. I brought up the argument that Abortion is wrong because it kills a unborn baby who didn’t get a choice and he kept bringing up the response that abortion is not murder. Even if abortion isn’t murder she is still being killed. Her life has been ended because she is not wanted by her parents.

“She didn't address any of my rebuttals of the argument or the murder issue.”

If you go back through my argument I never said killing a unborn baby is murder, I just stated what it is: Killing a unborn baby. As he brought it up, my opponent did not want this to be part of the debate and I respected that, leaving it out. But he continues to bring up that I dropped this point… like he asked me to.

“Then she accepts that she doesn't accept abortion, not even in cases of rape.”

Rape is a terrible thing, I obviously do not advocate for it! But even though a baby is conceived in a horrible way, you should not punish her for that.

If you will, unborn babies are like unicorn babies. Unicorns symbolize mystery, joy and enchantment. They are indescribable and extraordinary. To abort a child is to shoot the baby unicorn, but if you love and care for the child, you never know what hope it can bring to your life. It doesn't matter where that unicorn came from. All that matters is it now.


“Then Con implies that abortion is the direct cause of the death, even after I showed cases of abortion where it doesn't happen.” Abortion is the cause of death, if a unborn baby is pulled out of the womb before it can live it the open world and it dies, then abortion is absolutely the reason the babies die. Now as I said, the abortion that I am against in this debate is abortion that kills a unborn baby (when it is not done to save a mother’s life) not C-sections that help babies come out easier.


  1. 2. Bodily rights

    “Con seems not to understand the bodily rights' argument. Imagine two people, two adult living human beings. If person A needs a donation to survive, he can't force person B to donate his organs, his body, etc. But in no case B is killing A or affecting his right of life. Now in the case of abortion, the fetus has only one possible donor. If this possible rightly refuses to donate, then the fetus will die no matter what. This is not killing the fetus.
    Abortion never affects the right of life of a fetus.”

As I’ve already brought up, "We should be free to do with ourselves what doesn't harm others.” If you create a life it is not our job to end it. It is our job to take responsibility for our actions and not harm others in the process.


  1. 3. Abortion as reproductive right

    “Remember that abortion never affects the right to life of anyone. Abortion is just refusing to make a donation, which is just.”

I still fail to follow this logic, if a life is living inside of you that you or someone created and then you kill it, doesn’t it effect their right to life? Yes, I know it would be more practical and kill your baby then keep it but is being practical more important than other human lives? No.

4. Security

“Con claims that her sources are reliable because it has sources on it.” No, actually, because they are credible sources, ones that have people with PHD’s behind them. Pro does not explain why his sources are more credible then mine.

“I showed sources that anyone can read directly from the paper. Con is presenting a biased site with sources that I cannot read.” You actually can read them. They’re copied from books onto the internet, word for word. Just because the sources are not accessible online it doesn’t mean they are wrong. And if you look up Pro’s site, it has a bias too. Everyone has a bias.

“There is no reason to believe Con got the data from other place than the biased site.” Pro decides to commit the ad hominine against the scientists who created these books and against myself. This behavior should equal a loss of conduct point.


“After this Con drops all her other arguments.”

The reason I dropped all my other arguments is actually a really fun story, obviously not professional to tell in a debate like this, so if you are interested, PM me and I’ll tell you.

Conclusion

Pro continued to ignore the answers to his arguments.
Con rebutted pro’s arguments and has presented a solid case against the legalization of voluntary abortion

Thanks for the debate.
Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/9:

Thanks to both debaters for their patience for my lack of an RFD until now. I did get it done, though! I just wanted it to be a good one, and I miscalculated my time. I appreciate it.

On to the RFD.

Abortion is an always controversial topic.

Pro opens R1 with some framework and definitions. I will note that Pro's parenthetical in the definition of abortion seemed...odd--technically, under his definition, if we could implant a uterus into a dude, and then aborted it, it wouldn't be an abortion. I suspect it was included for the "human being" part, since obviously the focus of this debate was on human abortion.

This was a normative resolution--but not an ETHICALLY normative resolution. There is a difference between legality and ethics. I think that Pro could have capitalized on this difference more, as this debate focused on the interplay of philosophical rights and seemed largely ethical in nature, despite the resolution.

Pro opens with the Bodily rights argument--using a picture that sums it up as "My body equals my choice". Pro notes that if abortion is illegal, " women have to donate their womb for 8-9 months even if they don't want to."
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/9:

Pro moves on to abortion as a facet of reproductive rights, which Pro argues is a facet of bodily rights. Pro admits that abortion is not the ONLY means of controlling reproduction, but that it does "help ensure" it.

Pro states that "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy".

Pro moves on to argue that persohood is irrelevant to the debate, and uses the well-known (at least to this voter) "violinist" argument.

Pro moves on to aruge that Parental responsibility, arguing it's irrelevant to the debate. But it seems contrary to the "personhood is irrelevant" point. Pro claims it "begs the question", but it seems that it "begs the question" of personhood, which Pro claimed was irrelevant.

Pro then moves on to argue that abortion is not murder, claiming that it's the termination of the pregnancy, not the killing of the fetus.

Pro moves on to advocate that making abortion legal makes it safer, that making it illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, and that because it still will hapen, that making it illegal endangers women's health.

Con starts with an analogy--but with no real point, because the analogy has options that aren't present in pregnancy.

Con moves on to argue that the woman can do what she wants with her own body, but that she can't do what she wants with the body of another. This fails because, of course, the fetus *requires* the body of the woman to continue living.

Con moves on to state that "The right to life supersedes the right to not be pregnant." That Con concedes there is a right to not be pregnant means that Con needs to justify that position. Con does not do so.

Con gives alternatives to abortion, none of which apply once pregnancy happens--they're all pre-pregnancy options, and Con doesn't give justificaiton for the position of "no options once pregnancy happens".
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/9:

Con says that "People with Pro-Abortion mindsets believe that women should have the choice to be in charge of her own body, and I agree with that." This almost seems to be a concession on the part of Con. Con follows it up with idea that there are other options (none of which, again, apply, after pregnancy), and that there are "those who cannot choose life for themselves". Having conceded that the woman is in control of her own body, Con has mostly conceded the debate, and will have a tough row to hoe moving forward.

Con goes on to claim that personhood needs to stay in the debate. She doesn't really address Pro's justification for removing it from relevancy, though--and, I would argue, Pro has essentially conceded it by calling it irrelevant and using the violinist analogy. It only hurts Con to bring it in as an important point, though Con doesn't concede here that if she cannot establish personhood, then abortion is moot.

Con moves on to finding fault withethe violinist analogy, noting that it doesn't take into account the choices of hte person involved. I think this is a fair criticism of the analogy, and is part of why I agree with Con that personhood is relevant to the question.

Con goes on to argue that making abortion illegal would deter "most women" and that "there is no evidence that illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal abortions". Con claims that "even if the coat hanger argument was true... it's still morally ridiculous to legalize procedures that kill innocent babies just to make the killing...less dangerous to the mother." Con claims that prior to legalization, 85 percent of aboritons were done by reputable physicians. This seems to wholly ignore the other 15%, of course, and the safety inherent in legalization.

Con makes a series of constructive arguments. First, Con argues that aboriton kills a human being--giving no support other than a quote.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/9:

Second, Con argues that as soon as conception happens, there are 2 bodies involved--never connecting what that means in terms of abortion. Her argument three is that "it is just, reasonable, and necessary for society to outlaw certain choices". While true, this doesn't necessarily support Con's position. Argument 4 is a repetition of a previous argument of Con. Argument 5 is that the woman's preference is irrelevant. Argument 6 is that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth, which Con doesn't support outside of assertion.

Pro opens the next round by arguing that Con's case implies that abortion is murder "which is also false". Pro has argued that personhood is irrelevant...but to argue that murder is relevant is to bring personhood into the question, even if only to argue that it's not a valid point. Pro claims that Con argued that abortion was murder, though Con did not explicitly do so--I think it's just a bit of sloppiness in Pro's rhetoric (and Con calls him out on it in her round).

Pro says that the specific method of abortion isn't relevant, as *no matter what*, the fetus will die, so that the fetus is actively killed in the process is irrelevant.

Pro moves on to say that "the woman is not doing anything with the body of hte fetus"--this is a bit disingenuous, though, as the woman IS removing the fetus, so "not doing anything" is inaccurate. Still, Pro's case is that the woman is exercising her own rights to bodily autonomy, and that if forced to carry the fetus to term, the woman's autonomy would be violated. That's certainly a good point in need of rebuttal, even if some of Pro's formulation of the concept is flawed.

Pro claims that the bodily rights argument "doesn't even touch the issue of life or personhood because it is irrelevant, but it would not change anything if we gave the fetus all the rights of a person".
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 5/9:

I have seen Pro do this resolution before, and make the same statements about relative personhood. I'm still not sure why Pro hobbles himself--if fetuses are definitively not persons, in general most Pro-life arguments vanish. It seems a handicap to concede the concept of personhood for the sake of argument and advocate its irrelevancy on broader grounds of the woman's rights to autonomy.

Pro argues that abortion is part of reproductive rights and the woman's rights to control her own reproduction.

Pro he notes that his opponent argues that it IS relevant. He argues that it isn't, yet again conceding the personhood rights of the fetus for the sake of argument. TBH, I can see some pretty compelling rebuttals to his case if he concedes personhood--but it's up to Con to make them.

Pro argues that known consequences do not mean that the person has "consented"--noting STDs, for example, arguing that "Consent to sex doesn't mean one wants or embrace [sic] those scenarios". It's a compelling point regarding the issue of consent.

Pro then moves on to some of the specific claims that Con made. He argues against the claims that licensed doctors regularly performed abortions when it was illegal. He gives studies showing that outlawing abortion doesn't deter. That outlawing it doesn't deter isn't the strongest of arguments, but it's still a mark in Pro's favor.

Pro says that he already rebutted the "death of an innocent child" argument, saying that Con was calling it "murder" (again, Con didn't actually say that it was murder--careful lest you strawman, Pro).

Pro argues that since he's maintained that personhood is irrelevant, Con's support of the idea of personhood as relevant is not supported--neither by a support of the fetus as a person (which Pro is largely conceding by arguing for its irrelevance, though Con would still have to support it if she wanted to use it to support the negation), nor by rebutting his justification for its irrele
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 6/9:

Honestly, I think Con should have taken "yes" for an answer, and taken Pro's argument for irrelevance, since that argument conceded the theoretical rights of the fetus. But Con didn't, and now Pro has pointed out the issues that Con has to address.

Pro argues that "Con implies that the only reason I claim abortion should be legal is because there would be a choice". Con never really supported the case much, just giving a couple brief quotes in support, so it's largely a wash.

Pro ends the round by calling attention to the claims that Con made but didn't actually support with any argument, saying he'll wait until they are presented and, with that, turns the floor over to Con.

Con jumps right in with rebuttals. Her first rebuttal is that "abortion is wrong; it ends the life of a baby". That's rather begging the question, both on the resolution itself, and on the notion of personhood (I note that Con uses the word "baby" instead of fetus).

Con says that the baby dies because of the abortion. This is, of course, true, but Pro conceded this, saying that it's "just a fact of nature". It doens't further Con's case.

Con notes that she didn't call abortion murder--which is a true and fair point. But she repeats her claims that the fetus is a person. By making the claim, she has a BoP on that claim--one she hasn't fulfilled.

Con asks "if Pro could explain how the baby's right to life has not been affected by abortion". Of course, Pro has already explained this, arguing that the right to life does not include the right to force others to prolong your life, but Con asked for clarification, so Pro should provide it next round.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 7/9:

Con argues that Pro is saying that "the right not to be pregnant is more important than the right to life". This is a bit disingenuous. Pro has not implied that, Pro has argued that both rights exist, but that the right to life can't be imposed at the expense of the rights of the woman. Con has to actually address that point.

Con argues that she never said that consent to sex was consent to pregnancy. Pro did not say that she had, though, in contrast to where he said she called abortion murder, and I think it was a fair paraphrase of her position. And she doesn't address Pro's arguments regarding it, in particular the STD one.

Con says that her source IS credible, getting us to a conflict of whose sources are more believable.

Con claims again that a lot less abortions were taking place, but she doesn't give any supporting arguments. The deterrence argument isn't a particularly strong one, nor is the safety argument, but I think Pro has made the better case in reference to it.

Con corrects the assertion she called abortion murder, saying she instead said that "Every abortion kills an innocent child". Pro was right, though, to say that Con did not support this notion. Simply asserting it is insufficient. Personhood, while "irrelevant" to Pro, has been central to Con's case.

Con drops her second argument, and says she is dropping others as well, which brings us to our final round.

Pro notes that Con is objecting to abortion even in cases of rape--which is a rather big deal, as it makes the violinist analogy that much more valid.

Pro notes, and I think I agree, that Con seems to not understand the bodily rights argument. Pro says that "If person A needs a donation to survive, he can't force person B to donate his organs, his body, etc. But in no case B is killing A or affecting his right to life". This seems a good summation of Pro's position on the matter, and Con hasn't responded substantively to it, but has one more round to do
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 8/9:

Pro argues that abortion is a reproductive right--repeating his claim that Con is calling abortion murder. Again, I don't think this is fair of Pro, though it's not quite unfair enough to warrant, say, conduct for it, since it's a not-unreasonable implication of the idea that abortion "kills an innocent [person]". Pro argues that abortion is the refusal to make a donation, which is just, and that abortion is a form of taking responsibility for the situation.

Pro advocates for our preference of his sources regarding the data and, to be honest, I do think his were more reliable.

Pro moves on to Con's constructive argument. He claims that it is false that abortion is killing an innocent child, and argues that "If the doctor terminates the pregnancy and doesn't kill the fetus, it will still be an abortion. Con is against killing the fetus, not abortion. She is doing another debate, not this one". That seems a bit unfair from Pro. It's obvious to most that the abortion debate is about the types of abortion where in the pregnancy and the fetus are both terminated. Pro notes Con's dropped arguments, and hands the floor over to Con.

Con opens with the strange statement that "Even if abortion isn"t murder she is still being killed. Her life has been ended because she is not wanted by her parents." If the fetus is not a person, then no person has been killed.

Con once again objects to the characterization of her arguments as equating to murder. But she doens't address the substance of Pro's case on the matter and, as I said, it's not a wildly unfair characterization of her argument.

Con's next point is very damning to her case, as it removes the notion of the woman's initial choice from the equation, since when Con is against abortion for rape victims, she's taking a universal stance that doesn't have a necessary relationship to "choosing" to have sex.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 9/9:

Con claims that "Rape is a terrible thing, I obviously do not advocate for it! But even though a baby is conceived in a horrible way, you should not punish her for that." At no point has the idea that the fetus is "punished" been supported. Its death is a natural consequence of reality, as Pro notes, but it's not "punishment", and Con hasn't justified it, either.

Con makes a...strange analogy about unicorns that doens't really support her point in any meaningful sense.

Con objects to Pro's notes regarding the difference between abortion and killing a fetus. I think that's a fair criticism. It doens't help her defeat the motion, but it's nonetheless fair.

Con doesn't address the "refusing to make a donation" point in any substantive fashion, nor does she address his Person A or person B arguments.

Con tries to salvage her sources, and then says there's a "fun story" as to why she dropped her other arguments. I hope that the "fun" part is not sarcastic, and that Con's okay.

With that, the debate ended.

This was a bit closer than I expected, largely due to Pro's focus on bodily rights. As I said earlier, I've seen this resolution before, and while Con still had trouble accepting his "yes" on personhood for an answer, she didn't have as much trouble as his last opponent. Both sides did a fine job. In the end, though, I don't think Con adequately rebutted Pro's points regarding rights and autonomy, and didn't support her own contentions sufficiently. Some of her arguments would have been stronger if they'd been more rigorous, I think. Arguments to Pro. I will caution Pro, though, that his characterization of his opponent's arguments got a bit close to warranting conduct. Not quite there. But closer than I expected to see.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
I'm the 666th viewer? -_-
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: At this point, it's clear who the victor is going to be. I will be including my RFD in the comments section--I ask the debaters patience that it may not be posted until midday tomorrow (it's pretty long and it's getting pretty late). As it won't change the outcome, I ask for patience...if it would impact things, I wouldn't think it right to ask this, but since it won't, I hope it's okay.
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PLAGIARISM! Con decided to abort conduct via plagiarizing instead of demonstrating having her own thoughts on this issue. Con decided to abstain from making her own arguments, thus cannot win arguments, whereas pro did the action needed to win arguments (and yes, without knowing if con used just the tip or all the way, the action is still done). Sources con in addition to deciding to plagiarize, did not bother connecting her sources to her argument points, opting to instead leave them out there floating at random, and actually used a source directly opposed to her (or whomever told her to copy/paste) opinion http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/5/4092/95640-4092-m7hzf-a.jpg
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Really intense debate, but i think Con won this. Pro had better sources and was going strong, but con had better arguments. The parents are responsible for what happens to their children, so they should watch out if they get pregnant. Con is aware of other factors regarding the woman such as responsibility. I think that most people have sex out of pleasure, not of being accountable, so everyone should have that privilege taken away as many others were taken. A miscarriage is far different than the surgical procedure of abortion.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully argued bodily rights. The woman is allowed to safely remove the fetus (via c-section) and not let it harm her body. If the fetus(emyrbo/child/baby/human) does not survive, this is simply the nature of the child as it cannot survive on its own and is not murder. While I do not condone abortion as birth control, the woman should be LEGALLY allowed to make that choice on her own as HER body is the one needed to sustain this life.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good efforts by both Pro & Con in this debate. For me, the vote should go to Con for the win - for the following reasons. The claim was that "voluntary abortions should be legal" and (according to PRO) - Bodily Autonomy Rights are "the best argument" for keeping abortion legal. Con makes a compelling counter argument - showing 1. How people know that sex is how children are made and 2. How no-one has the right to violate the rights and bodies of others under the guise of "Bodily autonomy" rights. So, IMHO arguments go to Con - all else seems tied.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Ah, the undefeated champ remains undefeated! Although con has a powerful argument concerning human life and morality of letting a baby live as well as a good counter to woman's rights, pro simply makes a better case by hinting that a baby was not necessarily a human and that a woman had rights to what were parts of her body and the right to be NOT pregnant if they don't want to--it felt like con was trolling a bit, referring to the baby inside the body rather than the baby as a creature connected to the body. Overall excellent job to both, good try to con, and I hope PRO continues his voyage of undefeatability!
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments because CON failed to counter the bodily rights argument; Sources because PRO used better quality and better quantity of sources that better supported his (better) points.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Even. This was more focused on the debate instead of insults (like some other debates I've read) Spelling and grammar: Even. I'll usually allow someone else to point me out a spelling and grammar, because if you try to notice them, it takes away your focus on the arguments from the debate. Sources: Pro. Sources for opening arguments were tied, especially since some of pro's sources wouldn't open, but pro was the only one to use sources in the rebuttals round, thus he wins sources points. Arguments: Pro. Less dropped arguments, and sources backing up his rebuttals. Pro's round 3 is what wins him arguments points.
Vote Placed by kinsky 2 years ago
kinsky
ArcTImesSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct; i.e. Pro undermines some of Con's sources Pro made more notable grammar and spelling mistakes. Con made better arguments and refuted more points, pro didn't address many of his opponent's points so well... Sources are won by pro i.e. Pro had better sources.