Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Lannan13's RFDs

lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:23:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Debate: DDOlympic: Abortion should be illegal
Link: http://www.debate.org...

This is a debate for the DDOlympics and as per tournament rules I had received both party's permission to vote on this. This RFD shall be divided by round as the argument structure was not followed past the second round.

Round 2

Pro
Pro was suppose to start in Round 1, but due to their inability to respond, Con amended the structure and began first in Round 2. He stated by crafting a framework about liberty and then dwevled into the aspect of the fetus being alive or not and having liberty. He would later deffer back to the mother still having liberty as a constant which would still contest the resolution even if Pro would be able to prove that the fetus is indeed alive. In his first argument, Con aims to show that the fetus isn't alive and leaves the BOP to Pro to show that it is alive by giving him 7 different criteria that he would have to fulfill in order for it to be alive. He also argued that since most of the abortions occurred in the first 21 weeks, that he would be defending that portion. By Con's logic, per A2, states that since the fetus isn't alive then abortion isn't murder. IN A3, Con argues that there are many times that birth ends a mother's life and legalizing, or keeping it legal, would allow people to be able to lie and save people's life. In both A4 and A5 Con gives us his impact to show that 2.16 million women expierence illegal abortions where nearly 47,000 women die from them. He then moves to show who expensive forcing someone to have a child is that it is nearly over 6 times the average American's income.

Con
Con starts with a "simple" libertarianism framework that focuses on life, liberty, and protperty. Con argues that abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape, but in other cases the women should have the child and the pain that they are cause are their faults. Bob also states that there is no harm in the case of rape and killing it then might even still be considered unethical. Bob then moves onto the rebuttals. There he shows that the 7 criteria put forth by Con can be used on living humans and showing how they can't be alive under that situation. He then moves on to argue that illegal abortions don't really happen since they are legal and in many of the developed nations, which he argues that this is where the scope of the debate should focus, has laws that restrict abortions result in the overall decrease of abortions. He ends things by stating that they should put children up for adoption instead of aborting them.

Round 3

Con

Con argues that Pro did not fulfill his BOP in showing that the fetus is alive and hence negating his arguments. Con then attacks Pro's second argument, also claiming that it is a bare assertion. He is confused to the arguments and asks that it is flown to his side of the debate due to the potential harm argument. Con's premise syllogism is absolutely absurd and I will throw it out of the debate and not even consider it. Con then moves onto the fault argument and shows that many pregnancies are unplanned, pratically 'accidents,' and again calls Pro's arguments a bare assertion. He then again moves on to state that Pro does not fulfill his BOP to show that the fetus is alive, hence, not alive.

Pro

Pro argues that Con didn't refute the 7 characteristics argument and extends them as his evidence the fetus is alive, per Pro. Pro then argues that unplanned is irrelivant as sex leads to pregnancy, sex ed 101 for you right there. Pro then makes an example of stating that an abortion would be like locking a person in your house and killing them because you don't want them there. Pro argues that, with modern medicine, that the mother won't be killed by birth.

Round 4

Pro does not go this round per structure. Con extends his 7 criteria argument and also states that Pro doesn't fulfill his BOP. Con extends the arguments in regards to the mother's liberty. Con shows, again, that 1/2 of all abortions are illegal ones, even including and acknowledging the legality of the issue. Pro fails to address the financial harm.

Conclusion

The probably most contested argument in this debate that it seemed like many people wanted to go back and refer to was the argument about whether or not the child was alive. Con really did not go and refute the arguments made by Pro against his 7 criteria, BUT Pro never really fulfilled his BOP to show that the fetus is alive. I have to give that argument to Con. The next is the impact calc in this debate. The only side that really had an impact was that of Con with his financial and death arguments. Pro attempted to refute these by stating that modern medicine trumps here, but doesn't really give any statistics to back such an argument. Pro drops the financial argument altogether and since the impacts where won by Con as well as all the arguments in this debate, for the most part, Con gets the win.

Feedback
I would generally like for the debaters to use better sources. Even if you do use wikipeadia, try to site the footnotes they give you other than the entire page. It will be more helpful and it is more likely than not to be a more credable article. I also don't think that sourcing another DDOer and a thread is any actual creditable evidence in any debate let alone this one. Pro, I know that you were busy and things are very hard to do, but when you debate, try to keep it in contentious form. It not only makes refuting the arguments easier for yourself, but it makes it easier on the judges.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:48:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:23:04 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Debate: DDOlympic: Abortion should be illegal
Link: http://www.debate.org...

This is a debate for the DDOlympics and as per tournament rules I had received both party's permission to vote on this. This RFD shall be divided by round as the argument structure was not followed past the second round.

Round 2

Pro
Pro was suppose to start in Round 1, but due to their inability to respond, Con amended the structure and began first in Round 2. He stated by crafting a framework about liberty and then dwevled into the aspect of the fetus being alive or not and having liberty. He would later deffer back to the mother still having liberty as a constant which would still contest the resolution even if Pro would be able to prove that the fetus is indeed alive. In his first argument, Con aims to show that the fetus isn't alive and leaves the BOP to Pro to show that it is alive by giving him 7 different criteria that he would have to fulfill in order for it to be alive. He also argued that since most of the abortions occurred in the first 21 weeks, that he would be defending that portion. By Con's logic, per A2, states that since the fetus isn't alive then abortion isn't murder. IN A3, Con argues that there are many times that birth ends a mother's life and legalizing, or keeping it legal, would allow people to be able to lie and save people's life. In both A4 and A5 Con gives us his impact to show that 2.16 million women expierence illegal abortions where nearly 47,000 women die from them. He then moves to show who expensive forcing someone to have a child is that it is nearly over 6 times the average American's income.

Con
Con starts with a "simple" libertarianism framework that focuses on life, liberty, and protperty. Con argues that abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape, but in other cases the women should have the child and the pain that they are cause are their faults. Bob also states that there is no harm in the case of rape and killing it then might even still be considered unethical. Bob then moves onto the rebuttals. There he shows that the 7 criteria put forth by Con can be used on living humans and showing how they can't be alive under that situation. He then moves on to argue that illegal abortions don't really happen since they are legal and in many of the developed nations, which he argues that this is where the scope of the debate should focus, has laws that restrict abortions result in the overall decrease of abortions. He ends things by stating that they should put children up for adoption instead of aborting them.

Round 3

Con

Con argues that Pro did not fulfill his BOP in showing that the fetus is alive and hence negating his arguments. Con then attacks Pro's second argument, also claiming that it is a bare assertion. He is confused to the arguments and asks that it is flown to his side of the debate due to the potential harm argument. Con's premise syllogism is absolutely absurd and I will throw it out of the debate and not even consider it. Con then moves onto the fault argument and shows that many pregnancies are unplanned, pratically 'accidents,' and again calls Pro's arguments a bare assertion. He then again moves on to state that Pro does not fulfill his BOP to show that the fetus is alive, hence, not alive.

Pro

Pro argues that Con didn't refute the 7 characteristics argument and extends them as his evidence the fetus is alive, per Pro. Pro then argues that unplanned is irrelivant as sex leads to pregnancy, sex ed 101 for you right there. Pro then makes an example of stating that an abortion would be like locking a person in your house and killing them because you don't want them there. Pro argues that, with modern medicine, that the mother won't be killed by birth.

Round 4

Pro does not go this round per structure. Con extends his 7 criteria argument and also states that Pro doesn't fulfill his BOP. Con extends the arguments in regards to the mother's liberty. Con shows, again, that 1/2 of all abortions are illegal ones, even including and acknowledging the legality of the issue. Pro fails to address the financial harm.

Conclusion

The probably most contested argument in this debate that it seemed like many people wanted to go back and refer to was the argument about whether or not the child was alive. Con really did not go and refute the arguments made by Pro against his 7 criteria, BUT Pro never really fulfilled his BOP to show that the fetus is alive. I have to give that argument to Con. The next is the impact calc in this debate. The only side that really had an impact was that of Con with his financial and death arguments. Pro attempted to refute these by stating that modern medicine trumps here, but doesn't really give any statistics to back such an argument. Pro drops the financial argument altogether and since the impacts where won by Con as well as all the arguments in this debate, for the most part, Con gets the win.

Feedback
I would generally like for the debaters to use better sources. Even if you do use wikipeadia, try to site the footnotes they give you other than the entire page. It will be more helpful and it is more likely than not to be a more credable article. I also don't think that sourcing another DDOer and a thread is any actual creditable evidence in any debate let alone this one. Pro, I know that you were busy and things are very hard to do, but when you debate, try to keep it in contentious form. It not only makes refuting the arguments easier for yourself, but it makes it easier on the judges.

Thanks dude
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:51:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:48:49 PM, fire_wings wrote:

Thanks dude

Welcome.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:51:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:51:07 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:48:49 PM, fire_wings wrote:

Thanks dude

Welcome.

And put september also.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:51:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:51:07 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:48:49 PM, fire_wings wrote:

Thanks dude

Welcome.

And put september also.

?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
fire_wings
Posts: 5,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 5:03:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:52:43 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:51:59 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:51:07 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:48:49 PM, fire_wings wrote:

Thanks dude

Welcome.

And put september also.

?

The title
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka