The Instigator
mv
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
dalzuga
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

death penalty and abortion should be illegal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,551 times Debate No: 819
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (14)

 

mv

Pro

it's interesting that we as a nation are so worried about how high our crime rates are yet we hypocritically turn around and legalize abortion and the death penalty. how do we expect to turn people away from violence if we encourage it in our court and medical systems?

as far as the issue of abortion is concerned, no baby should ever be slaughtered on account of the jackass mother or father that says "i don't want to bear a retarded baby" or "i'm only 16, i can't support it so let me just kill it". yeah of course it's horrible for those mothers out there that were raped against their will and as a result have to bear a baby, but that gives them no right to play God and decide that that baby should die. ever heard of adoption programs, or anonymously leaving a baby at a firehouse? there are millions of couples out there that would do ANYTHING to have a baby because they can't themselves. what if that baby that was aborted last night in some hospital could've been the next tiger woods, the next president, or what if he/she could've been the next doctor to stun medical science and find the cure for AIDS? who are we to pass a life or death judgement on a human being? we are nothing more than citizens living in a corrupt world. we do not possess supernatural powers, we are not magicicans despite what some lunatics might claim. we are nobody and nothing compared to what lies in the next life. it's not our place to kill a baby and kill its chances of experiencing love, or first kiss, or first game, or first car, etc... abortion should be illegal.

on the issue of the death penalty, i ask this, what does it accomplish? my uncle was slaughtered and murdered outside of his home several years ago and the man that killed him was sentenced to die. he was put to death by injection last year. but did it bring my uncle back? no. did it allow me to go back in time and stop this killer? no. and if you literally take joy in seeing someone die, then you're a sick being. killing someone on account of the bad deeds he/she has done is immoral. if we were killed for some of the bad deeds we've done, we wouldn't have a country left. it's even worse when our court systems seek the death penalty for an inmate and solely base their judgment on the fact that our jails are crowded so we don't have the room to give this person life. i believe there is an underlying conspiracy amongst our court systems and our government. i honestly believe that juries and judges are tougher than ever when sentencing someone to live or die because of the severe overcrowding that we have in our american jails. and it's not like we can send our prisoners to other countries either because that obviously costs money that we don't have. money that piles on top of the 9 trillion dollars worth of debt we are in because our government can't control its spending. so what do we do as a result that we can't build prisons and ship our prisoners overseas? we kill them off like ants on a sidewalk. since our government doesn't know how to regulate its spending and how to NOT get into further debt, people must die for it. how can we expect to get out of this mess known as the "war on terror" if we have our own war going on amongst us?

now don't misunderstand me, if someone killed your friend or family member, i sympathize with you completely and i don't think they should be given light treatment just because i'm opposed the death penalty. they should be given life. they should be sent to a jail that is going to work them like dogs 24/7. jail should not be a cakewalk. and if our jails get even more overcrowded than so be it. we'll have our government to blame. but it is not right for someone to die for something completely evil they did. they will recieve their judgment in the afterlife and so will we. we only stoop to their level when we kill them off. people are so worried about peace on earth and our failing economy yet look at what we are doing this very second. no one wants war. no one wants to go overseas to fight terrorism. no one wants to die at the hand of a madman. SO STOP ENCOURAGING IT.
dalzuga

Con

Hi mv. You bring up very good points. This is my first debate, so I hope I am as clear and accurate as possible.

I'm afraid we agree (oh no!) that the death penalty should be illegal. However, I must disagree with you on the issue of abortion. The reason I took this debate was that, technically (by the definition of "and") I disagree with you that both the death penalty and abortion should be made illegal.

The Death Penalty

I agree with you that "we only stoop to their level when we kill them off." The message that is sent to people when we sentence someone to death is that killing is alright, because it's done by US (no pun intended). On the other hand, I think that discussing the morality of killing someone is superfluous when it comes to this issue, since the issue can be cut off altogether without raising questions of morality, as I will now proceed to explain.

The government's duty is not to play God. The government's duty is to maintain order, and keep society safe. Thus, unfortunately, we have to put people in jail, and administer punishment. But the reason this is done is NOT because it is the government's duty administer retribution; the reason we punish those who break the law is because this is necessary to keep society safe, which is precisely the government's job.

The death penalty, however, might have been justified in the times of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, because, at the time, there were no other forms of securing the usurpers from harming the population, such as by putting them in secure prisons. Indeed, Marie et Louis had royal friends and family in Austria that would most likely free them from any form of imprisonment. This is why, in the 18th century, the death penalty was probably necessary. Nevertheless, the death penalty is no longer justified today, because the death penalty is no longer necessary to maintain the peace and well-being of the citizens; because, today, there are viable alternatives.

If you wish to challenge the reasoning behind which I arrived at my view on the death penalty, please fire away. If you have any questions or something is unclear, please bring that up as well. I could go on writing on this issue, but since, at the end of the line, we both agree, I'll leave the decision of continuing this discussion up to you. Let us now move on to abortion.

Abortion

As you already know, we disagree on this issue. I could try and attack you on all sorts of technicalities like "its a fetus, not a baby," but I will not since I consider them important in your attempt to convey your point.

Firstly, let me clearly state my position. I believe that any form of harm is wrong. However, I do believe that harm can be justified, because sometimes it is necessary to inflict it (this is reflected in my view regarding the death penalty.)

In accordance, I do not think that abortion is something good, because it consists of killing a fetus, and I will personally do everything I can to avoid impregnating a female that I do not wish to have offspring with. Nevertheless, in the case I found myself in that scenario, I would still insist that the course of action would be for her to get an abortion. This is because I believe that abortion is a harm that is relatively justifiable.

Now that I have stated my position, let me proceed to explain why I differ from you.

You write "that gives them no right to play God and decide that that baby should die."
If this is a problem, then consider the fact that human beings kill many animals for their own consumption. Some, if not most, of these slaughtered animals are fully formed, they have instincts of survival, are self-sufficient, and so on. These animals are more fully formed than a fetus in the early phases of gestation, when the fetus can be legally aborted. Even if you were a vegetarian, why would the issue of abortion be more pressing than these animals, when the amount of animals slaughtered for consumption is notably greater than the fetuses being aborted, in addition to the fact that the animals consumed are fully formed?

"what if that baby that was aborted last night in some hospital could've been the next tiger woods, the next president, or what if he/she could've been the next doctor to stun medical science and find the cure for AIDS?"
The same argument could be used regarding masturbation. What if the spermatozoid abandoned could have become the sort of prodigious figure you describe? I know that what I'm about to say is comic, but kidding aside, wouldn't this mean that we should provide an ovum to as many spermatozoa as possible?

"ever heard of adoption programs, or anonymously leaving a baby at a firehouse?"
This raises a question of practicality. There are already many orphans waiting to be adopted. The demand for adoption is not great enough to meet the supply already. You can see that in http://www.acf.hhs.gov...
If abortion were made illegal, this problem would become more accentuated.
Debate Round No. 1
mv

Pro

hey dalzuga, thanks for accepting the challenge.

i also agree with your thoughts on the issue of what exactly is the government's duty to the people; protection. i mean that's obviously why the individuals who took the time to sign the declaration of independence and collaborate thoughts for the constitution were so passionate about what they were getting themselves involved in. they understood we needed protection from any foreign and/or domestic body within our own country and if we're going to have a government, that should be their number one duty.

as far as the reference to the 18th century and the necessity of the death penalty, i would like for you to elaborate on exactly the proof that there were no other alternative forms of punishment which therefore made the death penalty justified. though from the 18th century through present day we have become much more civilized, i still hold strong that courts (of some sort) and prisons did exist which would obviously serve as an alternate to the death penalty. the only reason they were radically keen to administer a death sentence is because specific laws from that time frame did not include the question of morality when punishing someone via death. they didn't have organizations like that of the ACLU that gained so much national recognition they actually had an influence on government policy. not to mention, most 18th century nations' government policy was the noose. there was no debate and no argument presented. most countries had a monarchy and whatever the king said was carried out.

on to abortion. my feelings and beliefs still stand. allow me to just say that my next points referring to the slaughtering of animals and human babies (of any development) come from a biblical view and my faith that lies in God. if i lose votes for admitting my faith then so be it as i understand there are plenty of atheists on debate.org.

Proverbs 12:27 says that the man who hunts for game and just kills it, and does not take possession of it for eating is a slothful man. the diligent hunter takes his game for food (roasting) and considers it a precious possession, as he has food for his family's table. today we are slaughtering animals for wicked reasons. many elephants and rhinos are killed for their tusks and horns and their bodies are left to rot. other animals are slain for just the sport of it and their heads and bodies are stuffed to hang on a wall for a trophy of man's prowess, while the meat was discarded. bulls are slain for men just to watch the sport of bull fighting. cock fighting is another sport where the cocks are put together to see which one will kill the other. gambling is usually associated with this sport. i could name other atrocities of killing animals which take place with evil motives but i believe God looks on the heart and motives of men when it comes to how we treat his creatures and we shall be judged for it. even when you look back at the time when Jesus was on earth, if you believe he even existed, slaughtering of animals was justifiable on the premise of survival. hunting and killing animals that are wild and attack men or their domesticated animals is not considered evil either, as david in the old testament had to kill a lion and a bear to protect his sheep as a part of his shepherd's duty. needless to say he had God's approval.

nowhere in the bible does it mention how abortion under ANY circumstance is justified and therefore i feel that the issue of animals and babies should be kept separate. we could both agree that most of the present nations do not kill each other for food and we certainly do not kill babies for food. it is purely a question of whether you think it is moral or not. therefore resulting in the question of "necessary or not?". animals slaughtered ONLY for the use of food is acceptable under my standards because it was acceptable under God's standards. slaughtering animals based on pure joy and sport should be taken as though that same human aborted a baby for that animal died for no reason other than provide pride for the culprit.

i could go on about how CERTAIN deadly acts against animals are justified throughout the bible because once again, the bible is my guideline to life. i understand that obviously our points will differ if the bible and Jesus is not something you buy into. however, please understand that the basis of many of my arguments form around my beliefs.

despite how comic the issue you brought up about sperm may seem, i agree. i'm sure when you masturbate one of the thousands of ejaculated sperm could very well have produced a "prodigious figure". which is why i do not feel it's necessary for me to "please" myself with my hand or have sex with someone i do not intend on marrying and spending the rest of my life with.

i also agree that supply exceeds demand by a long shot but i disagree that the problem would be "more accentuated" SO LONG as there is a government willing to spend money on better programs and houses for orphans. obviously if the government isn't willing to provide much more housing for the growing number of orphans, then yes it is easy to see that the illegalization of abortion would compile overcrowded environments. which is why i feel so strongly that our government should be willing to provide more housing for them like i feel they should also spend money on the building of more prisons to eliminate the overcrowded prison problem that already exists in our country.
dalzuga

Con

18th century

Okay, I really don't want to go into the 18th century because, besides being time-consuming, I consider it irrelevant to my point. My point was that the death penalty could only be justified if you find a time and place where people had no other form of punishment that would be effective in deterring crime (or, to be technical, it could be justified only if the person sentencing the prisoner to death reasonably indeed believed that there was no alternative punishment). The argument does not depend on the 18th century itself, I merely tried to use it as analogous to that "time and place" with no alternatives in order to explain my point.

You want me to show "proof that there were no other alternative forms of punishment [in the 18th century]" and we could branch off and talk about that, but the debate is about the death penalty today, as opposed to the death penalty in the 18th century. I would rather not waltz away from the topic of the debate.

In addition, I am going after the abortion part of the debate. If I can prove you wrong on abortion, I can prove you wrong on the whole thing, by the definition of the word 'and'. This is why (and I just realized) it is dangerous to use 'and' on the debate topic, since it gives people more angles of attack. :)

Bible

This is going to be tough because I personally am not convinced that I should believe that God exists, and/or that I should just follow the Bible as my guideline to life based on faith alone. You would have to convince me to believe in God & the Bible in order for me to accept Biblical text as being empirically true. Since I do not take the Bible for granted, I will not be able to accept assertions coming from Biblical text alone as evidence to support your point.

Nevertheless, I can still work with the assertions that you do not justify with a system outside of logic.

"nowhere in the bible does it mention how abortion under ANY circumstance is justified and therefore i feel that the issue of animals and babies should be kept separate."
I am unclear as to how or why you reached that conclusion from the premise given.

"it is purely a question of whether you think it is moral or not."
Although you do not provide clear justification for this comment, I strongly disagree. I think that it is perfectly acceptable to consider the problem in a purely practical and logical way.

"animals slaughtered ONLY for the use of food is acceptable under my standards because it was acceptable under God's standards."
If you convince me that God exists, I will happily take this assertion for granted. As much as I want to, I cannot.
From a secular standpoint, however, back then, people did not have the means to be healthy with a vegetarian diet. However, we know it is possible today, and this makes animal slaughtering not necessary.

Sperm

"which is why i do not feel it's necessary for me to "please" myself with my hand or have sex with someone i do not intend on marrying and spending the rest of my life with."

Well, the argument you set forth in the 1st round could be used to support the point that perhaps you are meant to fertilize all the spermatozoa you produce, because in your lifespan, you might have produced a prodigious spermatozoid.

I could even be more bold, and declare that you are meant to produce as many spermatozoa as possible (and fertilize as many of them as possible) because the sperm you did not ejaculate could possibly occupy the space of another, prodigious, spermatozoid, that could have been produced in the future, but was not because that spermatozoid that was occupying space in your testes inhibited them (your testes) from producing that prodigious spermatozoid that would accomplish that incredible achievement.

"What if the baby that wasn't born because you did not masturbate on April 9th 2053, and thus was not produced by your testes the next day -- and therefore did not have a chance at fertilization -- would've been the next Gauss?"
You may wonder and ask hypothetical "what if" questions all you want. As I hope you see, however, we can't really do anything about them.

Adoption

I guess we both agree that the problem gets more complicated. This is why leaving babies at a firehouse is not a solution.

Extraneous Bible Comments

This part is extraneous to the debate, since your argument depends on the existence of God, which has yet to be proven. However I would like to make a vain attempt at convincing you that abortion should be legal from a biblical standpoint, even if the existence of God has not yet been proven.

The King James version of the Bible says in Genesis 9:4
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat."

It also says in Leviticus 17:11
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have
given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul."

From these two quotes, we can understand that blood is what makes life. However, the first heartbeat does not begin until the 18th day of gestation. You can see that a pro-life website at http://www.prolife.com... confirms this.

Thus, can't abortion up to the 18th day be reconciled with your religious beliefs?
Debate Round No. 2
mv

Pro

as far as 18th century punishment is concerned, thank you for clearing up my confusion. at first glance i thought you were trying to say that absolutely NO other form of punishment existed but i now realize that you were trying to justify the death penalty in a society where absolutely NO other form of punishment existed.

"angles of attack"... i never take that into consideration when sparking up a debate. i purposely invoked "and" because i DO believe in the banning of the death penalty and abortion altogether. in fact i almost encourage more "angles of attack" to get the full meaning out of a debate as it also gives me more angles to counter-attack the initial "attack". i hold my position strongly as i also see you do.

BIBLE

i personally will never try to push my faith on anyone that doesn't accept it but i will continue to use my faith as the foundation of my arguments. i understand that for this debate we should only be focusing on the two issues i initially brought up so i will refrain as much as possible from "pushing" my faith onto your arguments as i have complete respect for the many other beliefs people have and obviously yours to be specific. if by any chance you would like to debate the atheist viewpoint that a God doesn't exist, then i will gladly accept the challenge and back up what i have to say. i will also go on to say that i'm guessing this debate has no further meaning amongst either of us because my beliefs on abortion come from what i believe is in the bible. my whole argument doesn't depend on the morality or immorality of the topic but rather depends on how i believe God would handle the situation. i should've made that clearer in round one before someone decided to accept the challenge.

allow me to clarify the statement i made... "nowhere in the bible does it mention how abortion under ANY circumstance is justified and therefore i feel that the issue of animals and babies should be kept separate." this again goes back to the fact that you are not willing to accept biblical text as being true or factual on any level which basically means my whole argument is not valid to you. i'm arguing with a "wall" so to speak (i mean that in no offense to you). if you would like for me to prove God and the bible's existence then i will do so in a respective debate.

in round one you mentioned a comparison amongst animals and aborted babies. you said "Some, if not most, of these slaughtered animals are fully formed, they have instincts of survival, are self-sufficient, and so on. These animals are more fully formed than a fetus in the early phases of gestation, when the fetus can be legally aborted. Even if you were a vegetarian, why would the issue of abortion be more pressing than these animals, when the amount of animals slaughtered for consumption is notably greater than the fetuses being aborted, in addition to the fact that the animals consumed are fully formed?" the basis of my argument against abortion is this... whether fully formed or 10 seconds old, killing is killing. abortion should be taken the same as a man killing an animal for pure sport. i do NOT believe abortion should be a more pressing issue than the unjustified killing of animals as i believe we are all God's creatures. i DO believe however that the only justification for killing an animal comes from the intent of the killer. if the killer soley uses the animals flesh as means of helping his family stay nourished, then it is acceptable. AGAIN this comes from the bible which i know has no meaning to you so i can easily understand why this point would seem completely ridiculous.

"it is purely a question of whether you think it is moral or not."
"Although you do not provide clear justification for this comment, I strongly disagree. I think that it is perfectly acceptable to consider the problem in a purely practical and logical way."...

let me just say this, if you choose to think of abortion from any viewpoint other than that of "moral or not", i ask you, what does the ending argument result in? it results in whether or not you think it is absolutely necessary for the woman to have an abortion. which then is obviously a quesiton of morality because of the two sides that arise from this conflict. one side says i do not think it is necessary under any circumstance to have an abortion therefore i will go on to say that any person choosing to have an abortion is immoral. i would like to meet one person who is against abortion but does not think abortion itself or the person opting to have an abortion is immoral. it's hypocracy. you either condone the slaughtering of innocent babies or you don't. it's hard to take in the viewpoint of someone who says i don't believe in abortion but i would opt to have one under a certain circumstance. same with the bible. you either believe all of it or none of it. you don't believe in the bible sometimes or under a certain situation. you're a believer or non-believer. and in response to the "justification" comment you made, please justify how you would solve the issue of abortion in a practical or logical way WITHOUT rising the conflict of morality.

again, in response to the justification of animals being slaughtered, i will save my response for another debate that is only dealing with proof that God does or does not exist which can then lead to a discussion of the factuality of the bible. for the purposes of this debate however, i will refrain from including my biblical arguments.

the issue of sperm and whether or not it is being wasted by masturbating or by NOT masturbating is an endless argument. you cannot justify a point that you canceled out in your own argument.

and yes we do agree that the issue of adoption does become a lot more complicated but that has nothing to do with the "firehouse" proposition being a solution or not. it's only a matter of how much the government is willing to spend on housing for orphans should a federal abortion ban exist.

the answer to your question of "Thus, can't abortion up to the 18th day be reconciled with your religious beliefs?" is no. i am running out of characters to use for this argument and this would take me quite a while to show you the dozens of ways you're taking biblical text out of context but i will refrain and again encourage you to start up a debate dealing with this particular topic if you so choose to further my biblical arguments i have made.
dalzuga

Con

"abortion should be taken the same as a man killing an animal for pure sport."
I would like to point out that killing an animal for pure sport is not the only way to unjustifiably kill an animal. There is no problem with you not writing out all other trivial reasons that would make animal killing unjustifiable, because those reasons would just be waste of time to mention since we both know what they are and we both understand each other (and I'm pretty sure our readers' imagination is fertile enough to think of other cruel ways to kill animals). However, there is one problem because you are overlooking a reason that is not necessarily obvious (or trivial): that killing an animal for consumption may not be justified. Today someone can lead a healthy vegetarian diet, which makes killing animals unnecessary and thus unjustified.

"i do NOT believe abortion should be a more pressing issue than the unjustified killing of animals as i believe we are all God's creatures. i DO believe however that the only justification for killing an animal comes from the intent of the killer. if the killer soley uses the animals flesh as means of helping his family stay nourished, then it is acceptable. AGAIN this comes from the bible which i know has no meaning to you so i can easily understand why this point would seem completely ridiculous."
The point is not ridiculous at all, even if I do not believe that the Bible is always right. I would also like to say that the Bible has very important historical meaning for me -- if not everyone -- because it has significantly impacted the way people have behaved throughout centuries of human history. Now that that's settled, back to your point. You do say "if the killer soley uses the animals flesh as means of helping his family stay nourished, then it is acceptable." I could not agree with you more. In the present day, however, people no longer rely solely on animal's flesh to nourish their family, as I previously mentioned with my point about leading a vegetarian life. Thus, killing animals cannot be acceptable today since animal's slaughtering is not necessarily justified.

Morality & Practicality

"let me just say this, if you choose to think of abortion from any viewpoint other than that of "moral or not", i ask you, what does the ending argument result in? it results in whether or not you think it is absolutely necessary for the woman to have an abortion."

The way I manage to avoid the morality of the issue is by taking morals that you already have and using them to my own advantage. By showing that your morals contradict, I am able to prove my point without discussing the morality of the argument: indeed, I did not have to go into issues of morality to prove you wrong. Specifically in this debate, all I had to do in this case is show that the morals that you have regarding the slaughtering of animals conflict with the morals you have regarding abortion. In this way, I circumvent having to show that "abortion is OK" from a moral perspective, and use a practical and logical approach to prove you wrong.

"you cannot justify a point that you canceled out in your own argument."

I was "justifying" an extension of my point, which is a different point by itself. Thus, I am "justifying" a point that is different from the one I "canceled out." In other words, all I'm saying is that they're different points.

Honestly, I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by this statement. I do not understand how I "canceled out" or how I "justified" my first point. I think that there may have been a misunderstanding regarding this quote, so I apologize in advance if such is the case.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cherrychocolate 9 years ago
cherrychocolate
nice debate, a pleasure to read

just as a comment on religion: I can only speak from the standpoint of an observant Jew, but I want the following noted -
1. I personally find abortion wrong, for moral reasons more than religious (which I will get into momentarily), and never intend to get one myself; but I can't support imposing my opinion on an entire nation - I believe strongly in a woman's right to choose that for herself, and honestly, I believe that a man really can't take the choice from her, since it's one he'll never have to face.

2. I can't speak for any other bibles but the Torah in fact doesn't value a fetus as a human life; the law is that if a pregnant woman somehow gets in between two fighting men and is struck and miscarries, the one who struck her is not culpable for murder - he just pays a fine.

3. It's also interesting that, in Judaism (though I think Christianity has it reversed), if a woman is imperiled during delivery, her life is to be saved before that of the baby being born - proving which has more value.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
I just want to know why people are voting the way they are because I want to know if there is something lacking in my argument or if there are logical inconsistencies. I would like these to be called to my attention.
Posted by mv 9 years ago
mv
"The reason I am saying this is that I came to this website not only to win votes. I came to debate.org to attempt to gain knowledge from others, and to provide as much of mine, as I can, in return."

let's face it, you must really ONLY want votes if you're wanting people to leave a comment explaining why they voted the way they did. i liked this debate because i saw a more specific side to the whole pro-choice stance. i've argued with plenty of pro-choice people and a lot of them had never mentioned anything you brought up in this debate. i made my points, you made yours. people will pick you or pick me. if someone votes for me, great. if they don't, great. votes should never matter. you should just be glad you had a chance to argue your opinions with someone else. if you're afraid of losing debates or that people will actually vote for the person you're debating with, then i think debate.org is not for you.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
Why, so you can argue with them?
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
When you vote, PLEASE leave a comment giving some reason as to why you voted the way you did. At least it shows that you are reading. These votes seem really random, really.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
You are right Dalzuga, though "pro" made "some" points, he did not win the debate. Many of his arguments were invalid- or based on falsehoods. He also concedes many of your points, but justifies his opposition to them with hypothetical situations. I doubt this issue would be so great if there WERE adequate housing for orphans, foster children, etc. I would love to see conservatives lining up to adopt abandoned crackbabies!
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
I suspect that a lot of people are voting without reading.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
To arrivaltime
Yeah, I was saying something different, but essentially I agree with what you say.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
No, as far as formulating opinions go it doesn't much matter to me how you get there, be it by study of the Bible or study of sociological issues and I had no issue with that being the basis of HIS beliefs; my issue was him saying abortion should be illegal because of his religious beliefs. He acknowledges that was his idea, and he argued that separation of church and state was a myth and the Bible is a perfectly reasonably basis for a law. So, I voted opposite that, because when it comes to whether or not abortion should be legal, I don't need someone else's belief in God dictating my laws.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
arrivaltime, you will prove nothing if the supreme rightneousness of the Bible or of your theory is not proven. However, I'm saying that if you do prove it, it is "okay" to use the Bible, just like any other theory, to prove your point. In other words, you are allowed to use God to prove your point if and only if you prove that God exists, or otherwise it wouldn't be a proof. Given that the Bible was not proven to be necessarily right, then mv did not prove his point.

I'm just saying that it is necessary to make clear that religion cannot be taken to be wrong for granted. Just because you do not think that God exists doesn't mean that you must assume that he doesn't exist: you should think that both possibilities are possible.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mv 8 years ago
mv
mvdalzugaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by buttercupx224 9 years ago
buttercupx224
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by pablo 9 years ago
pablo
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by stevster 9 years ago
stevster
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by agonzalez_esp 9 years ago
agonzalez_esp
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
mvdalzugaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
mvdalzugaTied
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