The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Thoreau
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/23/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,848 times Debate No: 858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Con

Abortion should not be the sole issue, even by prolifer arguments. i am prolife, but i think voting for abortion only is not wise.

fifty percent of the pulic favors the early allowance for abortion early in the pregnancy. those in favor of it are only going to vote for a democrat, are often democrats, in democrat states. they will veto any justice who wants to overturn roe v wade.

even if republicans are repeatedly voted in then, they're probably not going to be able to vote for anyone practically speaking who'd overturn. bc of those democrats. you'd be banking on the justices being wishy washy and maybe getting elected, by saying they'd be in favor of following precedent but it depends on the situation, whatever that means, mystique.

practically speaking, historically, regan appointed very many demorats on this issue. others did too, or republicans who follow precedent. that is a conservative principle, afterall. i'm not sure democrats are what's preventing an overturn, but the democrats can't be overlooked.
plus, republicans aren't that consistent in appointing prochoice, as regan was not etc.

also, as to the argument that we can take little bits out of the abortion laws... no one can tell me when i ask them what the game plan is. what's going to be attacked? when roe was decided, they also in a separte case decided the health of the mother can include her mental health too.
the partial birth ban was merely symbolic and didn't reduce abortions becasue they can occur in the womb then removed.

the bottom line seems to be that the country is divided, and that will be reflected in our system, and until that changes, abortion will not change. racism etc was not changed because we forced good guys in there, but because the country changed itself, it was a natural consequence. it seems far fetched and myopic to think you're going to force your way to change by the long and tediuous process of justices and such.

so if you're a prolifer, you can vote for them if they make sense in the big picture, and you can't disregard the issue completely i suppose, but you can't look at it alone.
Thoreau

Pro

I will address your arguments one by one, beginning at the top.

While fifty percent of the public may support the allowance of abortion early in the pregnancy, this does not necessarily mean that they will vote specifically based on this issue. Several of your arguments are based on your opinion that they will, however this can be easily disproved by a simple look at the stances of presidential hopefuls. If you look, you will notice that there are many more topics being debated than just abortion, meaning that the American public cares about these issues. In fact, the issue widely believed to be most important is Iraq, not abortion.

People are not voting entirely because of abortion now. The problem you talk about is simply not happening, and there is no need of change in the status quo. As stated before, people vote a certain way for many, many reasons, and abortion is just one of those.

If anti-abortion Republicans were repeatedly voted in, then wouldn't that be a sign that people wanted the decision overturned? I'm not sure I understand your argument, would you care to clarify?

What exactly is your stance? When you say "the democrats can't be overlooked," this implies that you would vote for someone who could overturn the precedent, thereby making your voting decision be entirely based off of their stance on abortion (which is what you are trying to convince people NOT to do).

I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no game plan." Is there supposed to be a game plan? What exactly are you referring to?

Of course the country is divided, are you suggesting that we force people to be of all one view?

Slavery was abolished because the North won the war, thereby changing the country. Segregation was abolished because people like Martin Luther King got enough support, thereby changing the country. The change in America was not the means, it was the result, and after that the laws were changed to reflect that. The means was force for slavery, and activism and protest for segregation.

On your last statement, are you saying that choice supporters are allowed to vote specifically based on abortion? I'd assume not, but you seem to pointedly exclude them from your statement. Care to clear that up?

Finally, some general questions:

Why exactly is voting specifically based on one issue a bad thing? What is the impact of it? If voters feel that strongly about an issue, is it possible that it is important enough to vote specifically based on?

Could you clarify exactly what topic we are arguing? You seem torn between abortion and single-issue voters.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Con

If you think people don't vote solely on the issue of abortion, then, actually, that's easily disproven, because all I need to do is find one or a few people who do. I know people who do, therefore the issue is relevant. Also some say it's a sin to vote for someone who is prochioce, even if that's not why you're voting for them.

"If anti-abortion Republicans were repeatedly voted in, then wouldn't that be a sign that people wanted the decision overturned? I'm not sure I understand your argument, would you care to clarify?"

I was arguing that, even if republicans were repeatedly voted in, that wouldn't necessarily change abortion, because of republican presidents who don't push that agenda and democrats who veto a justice who'd overturn. They are not repeatedly voted in anyway, because most of the nation doesn't vote on that issue alone. So anyway you look at it, nothing will happen, and it's unwise to vote for them solely on that issue.

My position is you can't vote solely on that issue, and when I say democrats can't be overlooked, I'm saying those bent solely on that issue are overlooking that demoracts will change things

The game plan I'm referring to is.... people vote on that issue alone, but there's no plan of attack to make in front of the Court. They'd be simply going on the chance an issue arises which the Court could address. I don't see much change that could occur given the previous decisions, and that's what I'm seeking info on. If you're going to vote for that issue alone, you'd think there's a game plan of attack and not some off chance theory.

I'm not advocating the public be all of one view, I never said that, I simply said voting on that issue alone is unwise, because it's pointless.

"Slavery was abolished because the North won the war, thereby changing the country."
Ok, I don't know, maybe I can concede that public sentiment for race was not changed first, and simply winning a war by force is what caused change. My argument that public sentiment would first change before abortion can change then might not be as strong. But, if slavery which was divisive was only changed by war, again, how can you expect something people are divided on to change without a war?
And, actually, I don't think I can concede completely that public sentiment was not sufficient in the civil war days alone to change it; it's simply that a few southern states wanted to be independant, and they represented a minority.

I'm not saying people who vote only on that issue are "not allowed" I'm only saying it's unwise.

I'm not saying it's wrong to vote only on one issue, especially if there's a decent chance for change on that issue, but if no decent chance, then it's not wise to vote that way.

I'm not torn between abrotion and single issue voters, I'm only referencing abortion only people are single issue voters.
Thoreau

Pro

Notice that I referenced the American PUBLIC. This includes more than "several people you know." Also, on the same subject, "several people you know" are most likely not several people I know. Not that I question your honesty, but without actually being able to SEE your sources, it is impossible to verify that they exist. Given that you are biased towards your side in today's debate (much as I am biased towards mine) it is possible that you have provided untrue sources. Also, given that we do not know these sources, we have no way of knowing how much value to place on the evidence. This should be considered, and your sources should not be considered credible.

Of course some people say that it's a sin to vote for someone who is pro-choice. That's because there are some people who aren't pro-choice. I said that abortion was not the ONLY issue, not that it wasn't an issue at all, and much of the controversy surrounding it has to do with ethics.

"most of the nation doesn't vote on that issue alone." So what you're saying here is that the issue you are talking about really isn't that much of an issue at all. In other words, single-issue voting has no impact, and there is no reason for us to care about it in the first place.
Also, what exactly does this have to do with single-issue voting? It seems more like an abortion argument.

"My position is you can't vote solely on that issue, and when I say democrats can't be overlooked, I'm saying those bent solely on that issue are overlooking that demoracts will change things" So once again, you're not talking about single-issue voting in general, you're talking specifically about abortion? Also, are you saying that people should not vote on abortion because there's a chance that Democrats will not want change? If enough people voted specifically on abortion, wouldn't that mean that pro-choice Democrats would not be put in office? Clearly this is not happening, so once again, there are no significant negative repercussions to the issue.

So you're saying that the only game plan currently in place for pro-lifers is to vote for people who will change the current policy more to their liking? Isn't that what elected politicians are supposed to do, is placate to their supporters? Once again, if enough pro-life politicians were voted in, then the situation would change. This means that single-issue voting is NOT A PROBLEM CURRENTLY.

But if it is pointless, then that means that it is of no consequence, correct? Once again, you have proved that there are absolutely no ramifications to single-issue voting.

I should clarify: Slavery was abolished because enough people wanted it to be abolished that the North was able to win the war. Basically, the public wanted something enough to fight for it, and so things changed.
Those "few Southern states" happened to be about half of America at the time, and so their seceding would have been a major blow. But to answer your point, though the Southern states were a minority this does not mean that they wanted to change. Had the North not intervened, they would have kept on having slaves. The vast majority of the North had a problem with this (and the attempt at seceding in particular), and so stepped in with the military.

How do you plan to prevent people from voting on single issues? If it matters enough to them, then they will have a vote weighted by the issue. You have provided no plan to stop this from happening.

"I'm not saying people who vote only on that issue are "not allowed" I'm only saying it's unwise. " So here you're saying that although single-issue voting is unwise, you don't have a problem with it?

"I'm not saying it's wrong to vote only on one issue, especially if there's a decent chance for change on that issue, but if no decent chance, then it's not wise to vote that way." So you're actually okay with single-issue voting, as long as it changes things?
At first you said that you were against all single-issue voting, but here you say that people should not vote solely on abortion because that would be pointless. But that isn't talking about ALL single-issue voting, is it? It's specifically talking about abortion, which may or may not be a good representative of single-issue voting.

Thank you for clearing that up. You might want to provide some other examples, however, since abortion is the only one that has been mentioned.

In summary, the Pro team (me) should win today's debate because:
-The Con team has provided no reason at all why the issue is important, and actually stated that the issue is NOT important multiple times in today's debate. If the issue is not important, then why is it necessary to change it?
-The Con team has provided no way to SOLVE this supposed problem.
-The Con team has not clarified their stance adequately, making it impossible for the Pro team to attack them properly. In fact, the Con team has actually changed their stance when confronted with arguments that contradict them, showing that they aren't really sure whether they are right or not.
-All of the Con team's individual arguments have been disproved.

Clearly all of these points should result in a vote in affirmation in today's debate.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Con

-The Con team has provided no way to SOLVE this supposed problem.
-The Con team has not clarified their stance adequately, making it impossible for the Pro team to attack them properly. In fact, the Con team has actually changed their stance when confronted with arguments that contradict them, showing that they aren't really sure whether they are right or not.
-All of the Con team's individual arguments have been disproved.

Clearly my opponent should lose this debate.

I have stated I know several people who say it's wrong to vote prochoice. You can't simply pound your foot and say there are not. At least say you don't know of them.
please go to www.phatmass.com and you will find many people who think that way. just ask, or do a search.
You lose this point because my facts are straight.... and whatever the case, your assumption I'm mistaken even without proof is not wise given that surely some people think voting solely for the prolife candidate for that reason is flawed.

Even if most people don't vote only on abortion and I stated this, a significant amount of people do vote that way.
You lose this point because I only say most don't that way, which does not translate into next to none vote that way.

As to the single issue voting stuff. We're not even debating because you have a problem reading things in context. I have never brought up the issue of single issue voting not in the context of abortion. I have referred to them as single issue voters in passing conversation, but it was always in the context of those singled on abortion issue.
Again, single issue voting is sound if there's a decent chance for change on that topic. Social Security is a political football that's up for grabs right now. Abortion is not. One has a chance to change, the other does not.

There is no real political solution to those against abortion. That's the whole premise of my debate. You response, other than the confusion you created taht I addressed in the last paragraphs? "what else are they going to do" That's the essense of your argument. Well, they can change hearts to be prolife, for a start. That'd eventually change politics, if the change in hearts occurred. Remember, this whole topic, if you actually read it, says we're talking about voting for president. As I pointed out, which you didn't respond to, history hasn't changed anything pertaining to abortion (except the partial birth ban, which doesn't prohibit it at any point, other than when it uses that procedure. the amount has not gone down) and all the public sentiment or abortion is in the Congress preventing further change.

"what else are they going to do" is the weakest argument I have other heard, and all the other confusion you're sowing show clearly why you lose this debate.

All this debate seems to be doing is fixing your constant state of confusion, misreading, and poor use of logic. That's why you lose this debate.
Thoreau

Pro

I didn't say "no, Con doesn't know anyone like that". What I SAID was that we could not SEE those people, and so had no definite way of knowing A) that they exist, and B) that they do vote based on single issues. I said that the source was non-credible, not that it necessarily didn't exist.
They then provided a link to a site where there are pro-choice people. But this is still missing the point: I didn't say that there weren't ANY people who voted only based on abortion. What I did say that the majority of the American PUBLIC did not vote based on abortion, and the Con team has not provided any evidence refuting this.
Besides this, though the people at phatmass.com are very openly pro-life, this does not mean that they vote specifically based on who is pro-life and who is not. But I digress.
The main point here is that Con team has NOT refuted the fact that several people is not of any consequence, and has not aptly proven that there are more than several people. If single-issue voting isn't a substantial problem, why are we even talking about it? There is no reason to waste our time on a small issue when we could be solving a larger one.

"Even if most people don't vote only on abortion and I stated this, a significant amount of people do vote that way. You lose this point because I only say most don't that way, which does not translate into next to none vote that way."
The Con has STILL not provided evidence that single-issue voting IS a large issue, they have simply STATED that it is a large issue, providing a link to some people who may or may not single-issue-vote on abortion. Other than one person's (and I'm just going to generalize and say one HIGH-SCHOOLER'S) opinion, we have absolutely no reason to believe that this IS a problem. The Con team MUST prove this because otherwise, the problem could very well be insignificant, and once again, not worth our time.

"Single issue voting is sound if there's a decent chance for change on that topic. Social Security is a political football that's up for grabs right now. Abortion is not. One has a chance to change, the other does not."
I'd simply like to point out that political mechanisms are impossible to predict with absolute certainty, and so there is still a possibility that the status quo will be changed.

"There is no real political solution to those against abortion"
Actually, I'm inclined to believe that there is, and it's built into the Democratic system. That solution is voting, and I stated this earlier. Their vote is not wasted because clearly, more people showing a certain sentiment means that that sentiment is more likely to be echoed in politicians' decisions. If enough people are showing that they will vote pro-life regardless of what else the pro-life candidate thinks, then the candidates will change their stances to reflect this. However, before voting day, there is no way to know how many people are going to vote pro-life, and so there is no way to tell in advance whether their efforts are wasted or not. And while the Con team can say that history tells that abortion rights won't change for a long time, they have no way of guaranteeing this. Maybe a plan could get passed that WOULD change the status quo, we have no way of knowing.

Finally, to address something that the Con has not clarified in this entire debate: Why, specifically, is single-issue voting a bad thing? The Con team said that it was unwise, due to the fact that the votes would be "wasted", but in a country where children are taught that every vote counts, I find this hard to believe. How could you know in advance that your vote will NOT count? Your vote could be the one that puts the decision over the edge! Basically what I'm saying is, not voting for something you believe because it isn't a popular belief and so won't pass is a foolish idea, because you can never know for sure.

What this all adds up to is this: single-issue voting is not a problem in any way. There are not many people doing it currently, and even if there were, it would STILL not have any legitimate negative effects to speak of.

I hope that's all clear enough for you, dairygirl4u2c.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
*jury is out on whether Con proved there was a problem or not.

Pardon me, I didn't do a check on this before sending it.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
My Vote is for pro on this... bescause the jury is out on whether Pro even proved their was a problem or not, she was unclear, and then had the gall to announce that she should win because she was unclear. Con's reasons for voting are unscrupulous and ridiculous at best, just saying that Pro is dumb doesn't mean that Pro actually is dumb. You started this debate and is thusly your job to actually clarify as to what you are saying. Your wording is poor and your sentence structure is hard to understand.

""what else are they going to do" is the weakest argument I have other heard, and all the other confusion you're sowing show clearly why you lose this debate."

A very odd argument, and one that doesn't even prove why his argument is a weak argument. Once again, stating something doesn't actually mean it is true. Not only that, the wording is poor again, and hard to understand. "the weakest argument I have other heard"...???

You say Con should win because Pro is sowing confusion, yet the confusion on the Pro side (assuming the Pro isn't just dumb) results in confusion mongering from YOUR side.

I would LOVE to debate you and point out these fallacies, and I want to let you know I plan on voting Pro almost regardless of what he says for several reasons.

-I am in doubt as to whether this is even a problem. Several people you know could be fallacies, and don't neccesarily represent America.
-You haven't told me what the impact of this problem is. At least not in a consistently clear manner.
-You have been confusing in your posts, and then had the gall to blame the Pro's supposed "confusing attacks" on the Pro side. All his attacks stem from your case, and therefore make the CON the root of the problem.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
personal stories aren't evidence, by the way.
Posted by Fimbulvintr 9 years ago
Fimbulvintr
I almost took up this debate, but im not sure what your position really is, does not seem solid.
Posted by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
I'm confused, are you arguing that we should be thinking about more than abortion, or that in thinking about abortion, it's smarter to vote for someone who is not strictly pro-life?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 Paine 9 years ago
Paine
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 colsen112 9 years ago
colsen112
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 Raisor 9 years ago
Raisor
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 WaximusMaximus 9 years ago
WaximusMaximus
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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