The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)


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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Holyelement has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 343 times Debate No: 105364
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




You said life starts at birth not conception but I have facts to prove you otherwise lol


I accept this challenge. Good luck.
Some notes:

-Con may not use Bible: Life begins at birth. This conclusion is the one that excludes religion, as inclusion of religious beliefs will contest with other interpretations of religion. One should not argue that life begins in conception by spitting Bible verses at a Muslim, and then warranting their source by saying their God is the true one. This is unfair and uneducational.

-Con descriptions of life must be sourced and warranted: Contending definitions of life MUST have some root of evidence, as well as reasons as to why such a point of view is to be endorsed. (If this is difficult to comprehend, take this approach: Who is saying life begins at conception? What benefits does this have in realms other than abortion?)


AGAINST "life begins at conception"
1) Most evidence in scientific fields that support this claim are ridiculously outdated and outdated sources do not apply to this realm of debate, because Life is a subjective point of view that is influenced very easily by science and logic. As it advances, revisions must be made. Arguments arrive anywhere from 1891 to 1996 at most. Because of this, any evidence read likely has a timestamp that invalidates it.
2) Other evidence is likely from very recent HHS definitions that have passed. However, the HHS is incredibly right-wing controlled, and because of this peer-review or these articles is unachievable and very implemented with bias in order to push an agenda. This evidence is illegitimate as well.
3) What philosophical grounds can the Pro use without being riddled with religion? Likely very few.

General theoretical questions/comments:
-How does one evaluate life? Is life experiencing the world, seeing and hearing more than darkness? Is life a heartbeat, or is this merely conciousness? The comatose have a heartbeat, yet it is very arguable that they are living, because living must not just be defined biologically, but philosophically.

In order for true clash to occur, the Contender must describe their interpretations of each of these, otherwise there is no clash between points of view, merely vague and abstract political agendas.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.