The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl is inconsistent w prolife message

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 60572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

linate

Pro

there is a burning building. you only are able to save a box of test tube babies with at least ten inside, or you can save a six year old girl. which is morally the right thing to do?

i would say save the girl.

i define prolife here. someone who is prolife at all points of pregnancy, where they think the laws should pretty much reflect that by mostly outlawing abortion..... should to be consistent save the test tubes.

how would it be consistent for them to save the girl?
dsjpk5

Con

Here's one scenario where it would be consistent: If you knew the test tube babies were scheduled to be terminated the next day. Under that scenario, one could argue that saving the six year old would result in the most good (since you have no reason to believe she wouldn't live many more years).
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

you have to introduce new different outside information to make the con position make sense. that means you automatically lost.
dsjpk5

Con

No it does not. You asked "how would it be consistent for them to save the girl?", and I simply answered the question. Nowhere in your opening argument did you ban such a scenario, so I have done nothing wrong by introducing such a scenario. You now have one round left to attempt to refute my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

clearly my how question was in regards to how it would be morally permissible to save the girl. not how by introducing outside information.

you have lost the debate.
dsjpk5

Con

And I answered that question. It could be argued by a prolifer that saving the six year old would be morally permissible if the prolifer knew the test tube babies were scheduled to be terminated the next day. And since you've made no attempt to refute my argument, it has been dropped and assumed to be valid. I have not lost. I have won.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
linatedsjpk5Tied
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: pro talked about random irrelevant stuff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
linatedsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't refute Con and he had terrible Grammatical errors.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
linatedsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro concluded that he won the debate in round 2 S&G: Self explanatory Arguments: Pro never refuted Con's scenario where it would be okay to save the girl
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
linatedsjpk5Tied
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 didn't respond to the argument, but brushed it aside on the grounds that new information wasn't allowed into the debate. This wasn't in the rules.