Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

abortion needs to be legal

Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:14:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
review of my old debate: http://www.debate.org...

I have no doubt that I have won that debate BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN VOTED

points he has not answered:

"as he says (maybe according to him) abortion is immoral and then it needs to be banned, then I counted so many things which is immoral to me, then it also needs to be banned? :) he has not answered it."

whatever each person considers immorality needs to be banned in the country he says, he thinks abortion is immorality and thhen declares the government need to ban it, then what if I say: eating icecream is immoral, then does the government needs to ban it?! saying abortion needs to be banned due to its immorality according to me is so ridiculous. by this logic, just a little things will be not banned I gues, at the same time I doubt anything will be not banned by that logic cos according to so many people things we consider moral maybe immoral, then government needs to ban everything because everything is immoral for somebody?!

"he says unalienable rights"
first, there is no constituition of such rules then it is invalid arguement, he did not prove the existence of such rules. till it is proven it is invalid. he just that it exists, then show me I said while he hasnt proved.

anyway, he says his alienable rights give him to force woman to help the baby, then I counted unalienable rights which gives me right to penalise a girl who has boyfriend before marriage, according to his society's unalienable rights give them right to force woman to help the baby(btw, banning abortion is forcing woman to help the baby) and our unalinable rights give us to kill the girl who has BF, now can we kill every girl who has BF?! using unalienable rights is invalid arguement.

according to me forcing somebody is also immoral as abortion is immoral to him, then which needs to become banned? he has not answered, he says it is immoral and needs prohibition, and I say forcing is immoral and forcing woman to help tha baby needs to be prohibited he never touched it.

I said abortion is not killing but he says woman kills baby, it is a slander, woman is not killing baby she just stops helping, my opponent has not answered it. he just slandered the women with saying she is killing.

he says {{{My opponent has basically dropped my entire argument on the right to life and human dignity.}}} I have dropped none of them my examoke refutes(second round) all his arguements, can you force me to help to my son or other people? as you can not help to give money to my son for treatment you also can not force women to help the baby.

{{{The woman has no right to simply "not carry a baby"}}}
woman has right to not carry a baby. you have no right to force me to help to people and you have no right to force the woman to help baby. he has not touched this arguement nor answered.

{Women Have The Moral Obligation to Provide for an Unborn Child}
women have no moral obligation. you do not solve what kind of moral obligation people have, if he says woman has I say woman has no such obligation. he is human, I am also human, how much his word is valid, mine is also.

he says you have no right to kill the baby.
here, first it is defamation. if the evil thing we do not do is clared as if we did it is a slander which is also defamation. we just stop the help, it is also one point which he didnt answer.

{We have the unalienable right to life.
A man has the desire to murder another man.}

wrong information, I do not have to murder nor does the woman when abortion is wanted(maybe some women wants to kill the baby).
in order to use this reason for prohibition of abortion, you have to verify: whether she wants to murder or she want to stop the help. after clarifing exactly she wants to murder the baby, then it needs to be banned you may say, abortion needs to be banned for one who desires to murder.
abortion needs to be legal for the one who wants to stop the help.
in this case this arguement works, but unless you verify and clarify that the woman wants to kill you can not force woman to help the baby. this is the result of this arguement.

anyway, he did not answer my arguemtn I wrote in the second round and he says: My opponent has basically dropped my entire argument on the right to life and human dignity.
first, my example refutes that abortion is not killing.
and I have not said that baby has no right to live I just said the woman has right not to help. he did not answer it.

and maybe the most hilarious point:
{My opponent"s only argument against it is that no one should have to obey my moral standards, so screw you I get to do whatever I want.

By claiming this he wishes to live in a world of hypocrisy, immorality, selfishness, and ultimately in a world that completely undermines our most basic human rights.}


1. yes no one should have to obey my/your moral standards. if you say I have to obey yours, I say you have to obey mine. who is right? me or him? according to his moral, it is immoral, what if I say: according to my morale, dating before marriage needs to be prohibited, then everybody needs to live according to my moral rule and the government neeeds to ban dating due to my moral standarts as government needs to ban abortion because it is immorality to my opponent?!

by saying it he says: screw you, I can force you to do whatever I want. he wants abortion to be banned and says us: screw you, I can force you to live according to my rules. he does not want abortion.
he didnot say it directly but it is like to it. he doesnt want abortion and wants to force women to help baby.

by claiming this my opponent wishes to live in a world of hypocrisy, immorality, selfishness, and ultimately in a world that completely undermines our most basic human rights.

we are human we have right not to help others but by banning abortion he wants to destroy our right not to help others.

there are still points to write.

result: I HAVE WON THE DEBATE BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN VOTED
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 9:58:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dude you didnt win that debate, in the debate you were supposed to argue why abortion should be legal AND FREE IN EVERY COUNTRY, which in the debate you fell fantastically short of your BoP of proving.

Arguing that abortion should be legal is one thing, but arguing that it should be free and free everywhere is a whole different type of debate that you didnt address in that debate
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 2:15:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:14:34 AM, Artur wrote:
I have no doubt that I have won that debate BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN VOTED
...
result: I HAVE WON THE DEBATE BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN VOTED

Oversized egos are fun to watch.