Famousdebater (PRO)Observations
OBV 1 - The BOP is shared in this debate. I must demonstrate that abortion shouldn't be banned in the US, whereas my opponent must prove that abortion should be banned. The resolution is normative and as such the burdens are shared.
OBV 2 - Since the BOP is shared this ultimately means that we must both provide a case which should attempt to prove our positions in the debate (as stated in observation 1). If we manage to prove our position to be true this means that we win the debate. Since both our positions conflict (I believe in allowing abortions; my opponent believes in banning it), this means that only one of us can prove our positions to be correct in this debate. Whoever does this wins.
Framework
My framework will be centered around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief.
Capitalism magazine explains this by saying,
“A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [2]
She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3].
You ought to buy the libertarian framework because this debate is based on a law change and a law change should be in the people’s best interest as well as the government's. With the less restrictive government the people’s choices must be respected and considered. If my opponent concedes that this debate should be about doing what is in the people’s best interest then the libertarian framework ought to be conceded and judges should use this as a judging framework standard.
The Fetus Is Not Alive
Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo as to whether or not it’s living so even if my opponent manages to prove that the fetus is living (which I will attempt to negate below), this still means that the majority of abortion cases do not involve any controversial life [5].
I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period.
There are 7 categories in which life can be identified. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion. The fetus only meets 2 of these when, in order to classify it as living, it must meet all of them [6].
Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met.
Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own [7].
Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks [8].
Growth - The fetus does grow.
Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce [9].
Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely [10].
Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.
If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Ergo, the fetus is not living. If the fetus is not living then a termination is not detrimental to society and it does not act as a law violation (ie. murder).
Even if the fetus is alive, you still ought to presume Con.
“the "right to life" doesn’t imply a right to use somebody else’s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else’s life.” [19]
You ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone.
Human?
There is a large difference between ‘human’ and ‘will be human’. Those that are against abortion often confuse the terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’. As Joyce Arthur put it,
“a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote” [23]
She continues with her example,
“Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes” [23]
As many pro choice people have put it, the fetus (and the cloned cell) represent potential to be human. Not humans. The famous saying illustrates this nicely:“an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.”
The fetus is comparable to the virus. The virus (which is considered nonliving) is dependent on a host cell. Just like the fetus is dependent on the mother. Humans, by definition, must be separate individuals from other human beings. As Arthur put it:“They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.” [23]
I do not assume that humans must be conscious or sentient. I do, however, believe that they must individuals which is clearly violated as I have explained.
Illegal Abortions
When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate [11]. These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part [11]. Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too [11]!
“13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”[12]
This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated.
Underaged teenagers
“19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” [12]
This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources [13,14,15]. Whilst this is still arguably subjective there are also many reasons as to why you should view your twenties as the most important reason in your life objectively. Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house [22]. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money.
“To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”[16]
Now let's compare this to the average income of a family:
“The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” [21]
Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money.
If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teenagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year.
Gender Rights
Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated:
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” [17]
She continued:
“[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” [17]
This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality.
The philosopher, Judith Thomson said:
“If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” [17]
This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality.
P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality
P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights
C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights
C2: Abortions should be legalized
Rape
14000 women yearly get abortions because they are raped yearly [12]. This may seem like a small amount (and in reality it is just 1%) however these are 14000 individuals that, under the libertarian framework, should be valued and considered in society. In libertarianism, the life is valued under opposite standards to utilitarianism [12]. 1 life is just as valuable as 100. Libertarians are individualists - not collectivists [20]. Under the libertarian framework life matters, no matter how small the number the freedom of the individual should be prioritized. Government restriction should be minimal and by preventing abortions you create a restriction. Due to the libertarian framework you ought to vote con.
Fetal Rights?
This debate (as can be easily concluded by reading the resolution) is centered on the US so in order to determine whether or not the fetus has rights I’ll analyze the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and the US constitution.
"American citizenship is limited to people that are"born or naturalized in the United States" (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word "Everyone" in the Canadian constitution does not include fetuses" [24].
Furthermore,“the foundation of human rights, the text and negotiating history of the "right to life" explicitly premises human rights on birth.” [25]
This means that the human rights articles are irrelevant when applying it to the fetus - however this can be applied to the pregnant mother.
In addition to this, if fetuses had rights there would be many legal and social dilemmas. J. Arthur highlighted these in her paper stating that: “Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons.”
Mother’s Life
“The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion.” [26]
This means that in almost ANY circumstance, an abortion is safer than a pregnancy.
99% of all pregnancy related deaths occur in countries that have no option to an abortion [27]. The correlation is evident between the lack of abortion and the maternal mortality. By the end of 2015, 303,000 mothers would have died due to the lack of abortion availability [27].
Does the fetus experience pain?
The question of whether or not the fetus experiences pain or not is another controversial question however the best source that we have to offer is the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) due to the fact that it is an official book/document that has contributed in determining the legal number of weeks in which an abortion can be performed [28].
The journal states that “electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks,” since fetal pain can only occur at a point in the pregnancy that the US currently deems illegal, fetal pain has no place in this debate. This debate regards the legality of abortion in the US and since abortion is only legal up to in 24 - 26 weeks in the US (for the majority of Americans), the fact that pain can be experienced around the 29th/30th week is not relevant [29]. And even if my opponent chooses to nit pick the state with the most lenient views towards abortion it only goes up to a maximum of 28 weeks - which is still not in inclusive of the 29/30th week in which the fetus is able to feel pain [30].
Conclusion
I have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you ban abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers / children; it also violates the law, etc. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round (after he posts his). I thank my opponent for accepting such an interesting and controversial topic. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
Sources
[7]http://bit.ly/1ZevZs9/
[13]http://bit.ly/1Ir6Q63/
[15]http://elitedai.ly/1Rukaz7
[22]http://www.theage.com.au/comment/stress-the-hidden-cost-of-having-children-20150220-13k6cr.html/
[23]http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml
[24]R.v. Morgentaler (1988); Borowski v. Attorney General of Canada (1987); Tremblay v. Daigle (1989); Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997); and others.
[25]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16291493
[28]https://scienceprogress.org/2013/04/navigating-the-junk-science-of-fetal-pain/
[29]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0
[30]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.htmlReturn To Top | Posted:
cooldudebro (CON)- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (12)
The fetus growing inside the mother is a living being; but, it is not part of the mother. It is a separate human entirely. Therefore, killing it would not only be illegal, but immoral as well.
First, fetuses have their own blood type. During the third week after the female has been fertilized, these developments happen (they count two weeks for her period and the ideal time for intercourse to conceive a child. The third week is when the actual fertilization and sexual intercourse occurs.):
"Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.
The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.
Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
It is during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medicines, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors." (1)
A part of a woman's body does not have its own organs and even blood type. Those are characteristics of a person.
A baby can feel pain around eight weeks after conception. (2) Most abortions occure before eight weeks (52.6%). However, 47.4% of abortions happen at the eight week mark and over. (3) This means that the baby is feeling pain seperate from the mother; as well as its own organs ceasing to function.
A part of a woman's body does not experience separate pain of its own body and body parts.
With the fetus showing characteristics separate from its mother, we can only naturally assume it's its own unique, functional human being.
Case 2: Women's Mental and Physical Health After Abortion
Women who consent to an abortion suffer from mental health problems after the abortion. Not only is the baby being murdered, the mothers' mind is being killed as well. A quote from my source:
"After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimize bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratio.
This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services." (4)
Which such a significant sample size, there is no room to doubt the result of the study. Women who experience abortions are significantly more likely to experience mental health problems post-operation. If you still aren't satisfied with my source, allow me to provide more studies to back up my claims.
"Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems" (5)
"The State of California pays the costs of childbirths and abortions for low income women. A study of 173,279 California women who had a state funded childbirth or abortion in 1989 found that 53 of them committed suicide within eight years of their childbirth or abortion. A 2002 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:" (6)
There is even more evidence to support this (9). However, I believe we should look at a very interesting study.
"IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases. If IA were to be confirmed as a risk factor for breast cancer, high rates of IA in China may contribute to increasing breast cancer rates." (14)
We can conclude abortions risk the health of women.
Case Three: Alternatives To Abortion
Taking Care of The Child:
Many adoption clinics actually offer many financial benefits to help with the pregnancy. The mother can even decide which parents the baby will have.
"All of our staff are friendly and love to work with our birth mothers.
- You'll have free housing during the adoption so you can be
stress free. - You'll have help paying your bills.
- You have the choice between an open, closed or mixed adoption.
- You choose your baby's family." (7)
Rape and Incest:
Not only can it not be proven that incest and rape actually happened, a very small percentage of abortions use the excuse of rape of incest. only 0.3% of abortions are caused by rape. Only 0.03% of abortions are due to incest. (8) If they were, why not just birth the child and put it up for adoption instead of ending a life?
Unwanted Child and Drugs:
Again, adoption. There are programs to help the child if addicted to crack/other drugs. Why would that even be a justification to kill the baby? Oh, the baby may be born addicted to crack so let's just kill it now. I don't want the baby so let's just kill it instead of putting it up for adoption and giving it a chance to live.
Arigatou Guzaimasu
Anime OP:
Return To Top | Posted:
cooldudebro: Testcooldudebro: Okay it works nowcooldudebro: Would you say that murder of an innocent life is wrong?cooldudebro: With your position, abortion does indeed include the moment right before labor. The baby can clearly survive without its mother then. Is it ethical to abort it at that point?cooldudebro: Would you also admit that the vast majority of women who obtain abortions had sex willingly; knowing that a baby may be the result? Famousdebater: Murder is wrong in my eyes, yes. Famousdebater: My position tells me to argue that abortion should remain legal in the US. Currently it is only legal up to a certain point (as I stated in my argument). So I only need to affirm abortion up until this point (which is a maximum of 28 weeks) cooldudebro: Howevercooldudebro: My definition is:cooldudebro: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.Famousdebater: I don't know about your last question but it doesn't matter as to the circumstances in which the woman was impregnated. cooldudebro: Therefore, that is any time during the pregnancy cooldudebro: Women who have sex willing should take responsibility for a life if they messed upFamousdebater: I do not accept that definition. It is always performer within that time period (unless the mother's life is at risk). But when the mother's life is at risk there is another life to consider. cooldudebro: I have shown the fetus to be alive and human. Therefore, it would be unethical to kill itFamousdebater: I have shown the opposite and will refute your argument when it is my turn to post my rebuttals (next round). cooldudebro: Babies can survive outside the womb at week 28Famousdebater: Alright I have to go now but I'll try to answer any more questions/concerns you have later.Famousdebater: Please bring that source up in your rebuttals. cooldudebro: This would indeed make your whole case null-in-voidFamousdebater: The CX period isn't another debate round. cooldudebro: Well, it was brought up. It was a source for the statement I made earliercooldudebro: Either refute it or accept its validity Famousdebater: You can bring in your rebuttals then (alongside that source)Famousdebater: Ill refute it in the rebuttals round. Not whilst I'm typing on my phone. cooldudebro: I would like voters to note how badly my opponent is dodging addressing that sourceFamousdebater: I haven't even clicked on it yet because ive just woken up (I'm from the UK) and now I have to go to school. cooldudebro: You don't need to click the source if you don't want to. I'm asking you to mainly address my statementcooldudebro: The baby can survive outside the womb at 28 weekscooldudebro: Therefore, abortion, by your case, would be equivalent to murder.cooldudebro: How do you justify this?Famousdebater: It can survive outside of the womb - correct. But the fetus at this point is not living (see: MRSGREN). Famousdebater: It can only be murder if the fetus is living - which it isn't. Famousdebater: Okay I've looked st the source now and it confirms my initial thoughts. Yes, the fetus doesn't require the mother at that point in order to develop on into human life but no that fetus is not yet living. The source is deliberately vague in terms of identifying the fetus as living and instead focuses on the fact that it is no longer dependant on its mother to attempt to prove that the fetus is now living. Famousdebater: TL;DR - The fetus isn't dependant on its mother anymore at 28 weeks but that doesn't mean that it's living (which is the assumption that the source makes).Famousdebater: Hopefully this clarifies. cooldudebro: Something you don't address is the potential for life. I have clarified that when there is a direct potential for life, especially one as prominent as this, it is morally unethical to kill it. cooldudebro: Also, under your definition, plants are not living things. We all know very well that plants are indeed living organismscooldudebro: Abortion, as defined by my source, Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. cooldudebro: Unless you disagree with Oxford dictionaries, then I would say you would have to accept that definition cooldudebro: In fact, even if we go by your standards, the fetus does meet your requirements. From your source: Respiration: Getting energy from food to carry out cell processes Answer: The fetus gets food from its mother which gives it the nutrients to grow. Reproduction: This is common sense. The fetus can not reproduce now but it can later. It's the same with children. They can't reproduce until they're older and develop. Does that make them a non-living thing? You admit that however unlikely, the fetus can excete. Therefore, the fetus meets all requirments to be defined as a living thing, cooldudebro: Actually, the cells that constitute the baby get rid of waste inside of them so, by that source which states excretion is "Getting rid of waste - including carbon dioxide from respiration", excretion is indeed occuring cooldudebro: So, even though I do indeed disagree over how you classify life, fetuses do meet the criteria you have given. Even if they didn't, you hide behind a scientific law even though it's shown that a fetus is a independant organism separate of its mother.cooldudebro: By independant, I mean not a direct part of her like an organ. cooldudebro: Which refutes your organ donation pointReturn To Top | Speak Round
Famousdebater (PRO)This is the second round of the debate and is therefore dedicated to rebuttals (as per the rules). In the CX my opponent references to the living classification system and it supposedly being contradictory - I will address these point in the next round of CX and in the counter rebuttals round (ie. R3).
Framework
In my arguments round I set a debate framework. My opponent has not made any debate framework meaning that judges ought to automatically buy my framework. Even if my opponent refutes my framework thoroughly in the next round, that’d be irrelevant since it is the only framework presented and therefore it should be used in the debate (if my opponent presents a counter-framework in the next round it should be ignored because a framework is an argument and can only be presented in the arguments round).
My framework was based on libertarian values.This means that a lot of my opponent’s case is completely irrelevant. In this debate, the point that judges should be considering are life, rights and personal freedom. Other contentions are irrelevant.
For me to win, I need to show that the fetus is not living, that abortion coincides with the UDHR and that abortion gives us personal freedom.
My opponent needs to show that the fetus is living, that it is against our human rights and that it doesn’t affect our personal freedom or isn’t worth giving us additional personal freedom.
This is now the infallible framework for this debate that cannot be altered.
Defining Abortion
My opponent believes that the Oxford dictionary definition of abortion is acceptable for this debate. The problem is that we are debating whether or not the US should keep abortion legal. The Oxford dictionary definition of abortion refers to abortion generally. It talk about what abortion laws are in the US. If we were debating abortion in the UK (which is legal up to 24 weeks) we wouldn’t use the definition my opponent wants to use because we are debating about abortion in the UK so we have to use appropriate definitions which includes the correct number of weeks in which it is legal. Therefore, I believe that we should be using a more appropriate definition for abortion. My definition would be: “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy,” which only has a minor modification from my opponent’s definition since it is now UP TO 28 weeks as opposed to MOST OFTEN performed during the first 28 weeks.
Refuting: The Moral argument
My opponent does not take any biological framework or structure in his argument. Telling me and others reading the debate that the fetus develops it’s brain at week x and that it has its own blood type, etc. is completely irrelevant unless you explain how that makes it living. A corpse has its own blood type, a corpse has a brain - is it living? If the things you listed make something living then a corpse would be living.
Judges ought to take note of the fact that my opponent uses bare assertion to classify the fetus as living. Whereas I have opted in to use an official biological definition to use.
All my opponent does here is use assertion and logical fallacies (appeals to emotion, namely).
The statistics that my opponent uses in regards to fetal pain are ridiculous. That can be deduced without the need of a source. Considering the fact that the brain only begins to form 3 weeks before the period that my opponent suggests the statistic already appears to be false. The official Journal of the American Medical Association clearly states that fetal pain probably only begin to occur at 29 - 30 weeks (which is after the 28 week period that I must affirm) [1].
It is unsurprising that my opponent’s source states this erroneous statistic though since it is an abortion fact site with 20 Pro life statistics on its home page and absolutely no pro choice facts (showing clear bias).
The advantage of using the Journal of the American Medical Association is that it is an unbiased document using in official medical conclusion in the US.
Next my opponent states that because something within the mother has different characteristic to the mother, that makes it living. This logic is also faulty. If the mother had a virus (which is something that is considered to be nonliving) would that make the virus living because (according to my opponent) anything in the mother that has different characteristic to her is a living thing. The same applies to food, her organs, bones, blood, etc.
On top of all of this, my opponent also fails (in every single one of his examples) to demonstrate why we should consider the fetus to be living because of this. He refers to NO biological definitions or standards. All he does is make bare assertions and assumes that we will be considering them to be true.
Right to Life
My opponent formulates a syllogism and due to its contingency on his previous contention I won’t repeat my points. Instead I’ll form an alternative syllogism.
P1: The fetus is separate from the mother but exists within her.
P2: The fetus is a host that is dependant on the mother for survival - much like the virus which is also dependant on a host (and is something that we deem to be non-living because of this)
P3: MRSGREN (an official biological life classification system) deems the fetus to be nonliving.
C1: Based on P2 and P3, the fetus is not living.
All premises and conclusion have been affirmed in my rebuttals as well as my initial case.
Violates the Hippocratic Oath
Interestingly enough, the hippocratic oath is no longer a compulsory oath for doctors to sign - though most doctors do sign an oath of some sort [2].
But what my opponent does here is against the spirit of debate. I’m not telling him that his position is wrong because the law in the US states that abortion should be legal. In the same way, my opponent shouldn’t be citing oaths to show that he is correct.
But alas, it doesn’t really matter considering that the Hippocratic oath is now optional.
Is it even alive?
The fetus is made up of atoms and compounds. At approximately 30 weeks the fetus is living. At this point it is a baby and is now considered to be made up of cells.
Logically if the definition of cells is small parts that make a living thing and I have managed to demonstrate that the fetus is not a living thing, then the fetus is not made up of cells. The logic is simple and my opponent (once again) uses no sources to prove that the fetus is made up of cells (only using citation for the definition of cell[s]).
Women's Mental and Physical Health After Abortion
The contention title here is very misleading. The majority of the contention focuses on a study which analyze women who had an abortion from 15 - 25 meaning that if we assume that the people are evenly distributed via age (since the distribution is not given in the source) that 60% of the woman had not done their degrees, 30% didn’t have a proper job (though it’s probably closer to 60% given the university-job contingency) and 100% of them are too young according to an in depth study which analysed all research done in an attempt conclude the ideal age for having a child.
All these factors lead to these mental health problems. So the problem is more likely to be the age of pregnancy than it is to do with the abortion.
And what my opponent fails to note is that actually a person at this age actually continuing with the pregnancy is likely to get worse mental health problems than if they had an abortion. So both ways mental health difficulties occur - though with the pregnancy (which my opponent proposes) the mental health impacts are significantly worse.
Your chances of postpartum depression are increased by 100% as a teenage mother as well as other miscellaneous mental health problems that are increased in probability [3].
My opponent’s next point regards breast cancer chances being increased. This is a particularly interesting point since there was a lot of debate and controversy about this point a few years ago. The official, government cancer treatment/awareness website (cancer.gov) states that after an in depth study they concluded that there was no link between abortion/miscarriages and breast cancer. Let’s consider that we are comparing my source (a worldwide government sourced cancer website against my opponent’s citation which is a source published by a Pro life writer. The more credible citation is clear. [4]
I should also note that it is now considered to be a truism that breast cancer and abortion do not correlate (though most people don’t know this which is why it’s always interesting when somebody brings this up) [4].
Refuting: Alternatives to Abortion
Adoption is a terrible alternative that people continuously use. In the past 5 years abortion rates have been roughly 700,000 to 900,000 abortions (for some reason I was unable to find 2015 abortion statistics or 2016 approximations) [5].
My opponent proposes that we use adoption as an abortion alternative. Approximately 135,000 adoptions occur per year. That’ll leave 565,000 - 765,000 children who are left unadopted. What does my opponent propose we do with them? The reality is that we do not have enough willing foster parents to look after all these fetus’ that people would ideally want to abort.
Rape and Incest
I am aware that rape is a minor impact however it is completely untrue that it cannot be proven. There can be physical injuries, DNA evidence, inconsistent stories, etc. All of this helps to prove whether rape occurred or not.
Unwanted Child and Drugs
The adoption argument has already been refuted above. As for the the drugs, I’m really puzzled at what my opponent is talking about. I never once made an argument about any babies being born addicted to drugs or anything of this sort. Since I never made this argument, the pre-emptive rebuttal is irrelevant.
Women's health
Now my opponent makes a clear rebuttal in the arguments round. This is a violation of the rules of the debate which could justify an auto-loss for my opponent. Though I won’t make a big deal out of it if judges decide not to count it.
Since this is a rebuttal, I will not refute it until the counter rebuttals round (ie. R3).
Conclusion
My opponent has made a huge number of assertions, logical fallacies and bias/fallacious sources. Most (if not all) of his factual claims have been incorrect or irrelevant. At this point in the debate it is incredibly clear where the resolution lies. It is clearly affirmed. Over to Con.
Sources
[1]https://scienceprogress.org/2013/04/navigating-the-junk-science-of-fetal-pain/
[2]http://gizmodo.com/doctors-aren-t-actually-bound-by-the-hippocratic-oath-1465044222
[3]http://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/teenage-pregnancy-effects#Intro1
[4]https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk
[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_StatesReturn To Top | Posted:
cooldudebro (CON)“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.
Medical facts of fetal pain
Anatomical studies have documented that the body’s pain network—the spino-thalamic pathway—is established by 20 weeks gestation.
• “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto
• An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
— Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University
Unborn babies have heightened sensitivities
Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
“Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation,” stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as “pro-choice,” in testimony before the U.S. Congress.
Given the medical evidence that unborn babies experience pain, compassionate people are viewing abortion more and more as an inhumane and intolerable brutality against defenseless human beings.
The unborn baby at 20 weeks
Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
• The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days.
• Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
• The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
• All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
• By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches." (3)
"We know that pain if definitely felt after 29 weeks; but we don't know if it is felt sooner."
Pain? What of just comfort?
The unborn baby not only feels pain but will maneuver himself around in the womb to a comfortable position: [13]
One of the most uncomfortable ledges that the unborn can encounter is his mother’s backbone. If he happens to be lying so that his own backbone is across hers [when the mother lies on her back], the unborn will wiggle around until he can get away from this highly disagreeable position.
But isn’t pain mostly psychological?
Don't be fooled into thinking that the unborn baby "only" suffers psychological pain (before being killed): [14]
There is also organic, or physiological pain which elicits a neurological response to pain.
But early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore the baby feels no pain, right? Wrong.
The cerebral cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (as mentioned above) the thalamus is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain: [15]
Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex.
OK, unborn babies can feel real physical pain in the womb. But do they feel pain during an abortion?
This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over a law to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that the anaesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S. Society for Obstetric Anaesthesia & Perinatology vigorously denied this explaining that usual anaesthesia did not harm the baby. [16]
This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives: [17]
The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant.
Additionally, babies in the womb might actually be MORE sensitive to pain: [18]
Far from being less able to feel pain, such premature newborns may be more sensitive to pain...that babies under 30 weeks have a newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tender age.
And even more data.
Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord. They observed: [19]
The fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age.
Another excellent British study commented on this: [20]
It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." (7)
Method After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratios.
Results Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.
Conclusions This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services."
And this:
"A 2002 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:"
My opponent dropped those two studies entirely. However, I believe he was referencing this study:
""Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems"
His study does not account for when the baby was given up for adoption. His study deals with depression almost exclusively with the excuse of stress to leading to other mental disorders (which you can get from everyday life). Meanwhile, my studies go over many different effects that could happen because of an abortion including depression. Thus, abortion is more detrimental to women's mental health than keeping it would be.
NOTE: his only study against my mental health studies only involve teen mothers and not adult mothers. Therefore, a large amount of mothers are left out of his study; making my studies more relevant.
Now, I've shown how studies sponsored by the government can be wrong. Allow me to explain how my study is more relevant.
His study was conducted on animals. Mine was conducted on humans.
His study was one scientific workshop. My study was made from a total of two cohort studies and thirty-four case-controlled studies.
As quoted by my study:
"
Methods
We searched three English databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Wiley) and three Chinese databases (CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) for studies up to December 2012, supplemented by manual searches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature searching, study selection, and data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Random effects models were used to estimate the summary odds ratios (ORs) and the 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
A total of 36 articles (two cohort studies and 34 case–control studies) covering 14 provinces in China were included in this review. Compared to people without any history of IA, an increased risk of breast cancer was observed among females who had at least one IA (OR = 1.44, 95 % CI 1.29–1.59, I2 = 82.6 %, p < 0.001, n = 34). No significant publication bias was found among the included studies (Egger test, p = 0.176). The risk increased to 1.76 (95 % CI 1.39–2.22) and 1.89 (95 % CI 1.40–2.55) for people who had at least two IAs and at least three IAs, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results to the primary results. Meta-regression analysis of the included studies found that the association between IA and breast cancer risk attenuated with increasing percent of IA in the control group (β = −0.022, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases. If IA were to be confirmed as a risk factor for breast cancer, high rates of IA in China may contribute to increasing breast cancer rates."
It is clear that my study is more reliable.
Rebuttal 7: Adoption
Here are the problems I have with his case:
1. He assumes that all mothers who had an abortion will choose adoption. It is logical to assume that some of the mothers would choose to keep the baby instead.
2. Abortion is now viewed as a form of contraceptive. As quoted:
"46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
It was not a rebuttal. I needed an example for my case and I used that one. I'm sorry if you think I was aiming to refute anything early.
Return To Top | Posted:
Famousdebater: I'll briefly explain what I mean by a framework. A framework is totally optional. What it means is that you can argue that a certain thing should be prioritized in the debate more than anything else. Since my framework was centered on libertarian values and why they are important, that means that judges should weigh arguments that affirm libertarian values as more important and holding more weight than others.Famousdebater: Frameworks are a form of argument because sometimes there is dispute as to what arguments should be weighed as the most important arguments. I could, for example, have argued that the economic impacts are the most important, whereas you could have argued that individual rights are the most important. In this scenario there would be a discussion on the framework and which is the correct one to follow. Judges will have to begin by concluding which framework is argued for in the strongest way and then decide a framework to follow. After this,they'd analyze the debate with the mindset that the Famousdebater: framework's values are to be prioritized and considered the most important (even if the judge personally believes differently to the framework, they must abide by it)cooldudebro: As what I thought it was. Therefore, my framework is the right to lifecooldudebro: Do you wish to contest my rebuttal of the JAMA study or do you concede it and let it be nulled? If you contest my rebuttal, why do you do so? What points that I made seemed illogical to you?>Famousdebater: I wish to contest with it. Famousdebater: Just because it's been wrong once doesn't mean that it's always wrong. Famousdebater: Oxford university studies have been wrong before. Evolutionary studies have been wrong before. Studies on the Big Bang have been wrong before. NASA has been wrong before. I could go on. Famousdebater: You haven't showed why that particular article is wrong. All you've done is said that they've been wrong before so they're wrong now (you can see why this is logically fallacious). Famousdebater: Pretty much every living human being over the age of 5 has been wrong before. Should we discredit everybody's opinions and even facts discovered by these people based on this?cooldudebro: *facepalms* you totally ignored all the flaws with the study that I pointed out. The point that they've been wrong recently with another study was used to further my point.cooldudebro: Do you have anything against the points I made against the study itself. If so, do you wish to contest those points and how do you want to do so. If not, accept the source is nullified.cooldudebro: *?Return To Top | Speak Round
Famousdebater (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
cooldudebro (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
Judge: ultimate.debater
Judge: dsjpk5
Judge: aristotle^
Judge: Gatinburg Gamer
Bi0Hazard
Judge: boris7698
Judge: Petasos
Judge: Vladamir Putin
@BioHazard Okay, thanks. Posted 2017-03-02 08:51:44
@Famousdebater
Paste this in the rules of the debate next time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vWrUtwoRSvVqxw9MmqeajStGDbiXpYxPy2_pN6toOFM/edit
Then when someone breaks the rules, you can request to remove their judgement. Posted 2017-03-02 06:47:34
Well this debate has definitely been an interesting experience for me. Not one of the votes submitted are sufficient in my opinion (including the ones in my favor), but maybe that's my fault for not setting this debate up properly. Regardless of this, I'd like to thank cooldudebro for the debate. I'm definitely interested in discussing this topic (or another topic) again with him but unfortunately I can't say that if I do debate him again I'll be doing it on edeb8. Posted 2017-03-01 06:15:17
i does not matter what we think now our founders have set the constitution in order for us to clearly follow which states that we shall not kill and furthermore killing a fetus should be unlawfulPosted 2017-02-17 13:28:03
There is an optional voting standard you (or your opponent) could have set. Posted 2017-02-11 17:10:51
On debate.org every single vote on this debate would be removed because they'd be insufficient by the voting standards. Posted 2017-02-02 09:38:35
There are way too many vote bombs on this debate. Posted 2017-02-02 09:37:57
It is funny how people are more accepting of those who vote for them, but would deny them as "biased" if voted against.
Even I have suffered from this, though I hope I can change it. Posted 2017-02-01 16:27:49
@BioHazard I am talking about the UDHR. Many of these rights include the right for everybody to have a shelter. No country is able to shelter everybody (which is what this right suggests we should be trying to do). Posted 2017-01-22 07:06:28
@Famousdebater
Again, what constitutes murder is under the law and interpretation of the law.
All human rights violations are illegal. By definition, a right is a legal entitlement. Many countries don't have certain human rights in their jurisdiction. If you are talking about non-legal human rights (like objective natural rights that apply everywhere regardless of the law), I don't hold to their existence (human rights are a social construct). Posted 2017-01-22 07:02:49
@David Fedorov Thanks. Posted 2017-01-22 05:33:23
@BioHazard Whilst the rights debate is connected to the life debate, the life debate links to many arguments. You can use life to justify abortion being murder which is against the law. Whereas, human rights violations aren't necessarily against the law (some are but it is not a requirement to keep all of them). Therefore, many argue that that abortion is murder not necessarily a human rights violation. Posted 2017-01-22 05:32:58
I am a person who does believe that abortion should not remain legal in U.S.A, but in this case I just had to give the vote to Famousdebate. For his writings and statements seems more appealing than Cooldudebro. Posted 2017-01-21 11:19:16
@Famousdebater
The point is that the issue of abortion isn't a matter of whether the fetus is biologically living but an issue of how we should enforce human rights culturally and politically. You seem to disagree that human rights (like the right to life) should apply to the fetus, but pro-lifers believe that they should. So, to me, whether the fetus is living is irrelevant. What is debated here is whether the state should protect the fetus (which prevents a woman from choosing an abortion), allow it at a certain stage but not at another, or leave the state out of the woman's decision. You can justify it by attempting to demonstrate that fetus is biologically living, but you then have to demonstrate why this means the state ought to enforce a law that bans it. You can also ban abortion without granting the fetus human rights.Posted 2017-01-18 14:12:28
@BioHazard I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Posted 2017-01-18 10:32:27
@Famousdebater
It certainly can. Here is an example with the U.S. code of law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
It is the state that keeps and enforces and the constitution or declaration that defines the laws and rights (even if it is through the people).Posted 2017-01-16 08:46:45
@BioHazard The state doesn't define human beings as a homo sapien out of the womb. A human being isn't necessarily born which is why abortion is controversial. I am completely aware that many argue that the state of the fetus being living or non living doesn't matter, but in this particular discussion it was a significant point as both of our argument concerned the issue and both of us had arguments to suggest that it was important to the issue. Whilst there are valid reasons to suggest that the living state of the fetus isn't relevant to the debate, this was not a part of this debate. All people are biologically alive (unless they are dead - though in this state they aren't technically people anymore). Therefore, if you conclude that person x (for example) is a person then you can automatically make a follow up conclusion that person x is living. Posted 2017-01-16 07:47:06
@Famousdebater
Rights are only subject to what they are legally expanded to. If the state defines a human being as a biological homo sapien out of the womb (and it defines all rights as belonging to human beings), then the fetus doesn't have human rights regardless of what the science says about the biological life of the fetus. Many pro-choice advocates believe that whether the fetus is living doesn't matter, it shouldn't interfere with the woman's choice anyways. Also, being a person is not necessarily the same as being biologically alive. Posted 2017-01-15 16:53:32
@BioHazard This all leads back to my argument. Human rights are applicable to all humans. In order for something to be defined as a human it must be living and be a homo sapien. This means that everything is contingent on the fetus being living. If the fetus is living then it is human (due to it's genetic makeup and the combined fact that it's living) and if it's human then it is automatically applicable for human rights.
Of course, defining a "human being" can be subject to change but to avoid subjective definitions the best way to look at the issue is to look at it from an objective point of view. And as this debate managed to demonstrate, the issue isn't as simple as living/non living. Since many pro-life advocates don't look at it from a technical perspective (as this lies objectively in favor of the fetus being nonliving), the debate often changes from life to whether or not the fetus can feel pain (and other issues regarding the fetus' capacity). Posted 2017-01-15 03:43:52
@Famousdebater
It depends on how the state and/or society defines a human being. Living and nonliving is meaningless in this case unless you are wanting to expand rights to whatever is living. Many pro-choice advocates agree that whether the fetus is "alive" is irrelevant. They see that there are different views on it, but believe that it shouldn't end up interfering with the woman's right to choose an abortion. So, the conflict is really whether the fetus should be granted human rights. Pro-choicers don't think they should. I am sure the pro-choice side in general may think of the concept of a "human being" as a societal construct that is decided by society itself, not with our intrinsic nature and value. Libertarians value the human being, but not necessarily biological life.
The UDHR is a human construct that requires a state to enforce or for human communities to accept and live by. It is subject to human interpretation. Posted 2017-01-12 17:44:54
@BioHazard The libertarian framework is a moral argument from a libertarian point of view which was the framework set for the debate (due to no challenge onto it).
The UDHR applies to all human beings regardless of their mental, physical or emotional state. Libertarians value individual life (and so does the UDHR), therefore, it depends on whether or the fetus is living (and human) as to whether or not they accept the rights of the fetus. A nonliving, non human being is not subject to human rights. The question is whether or not the fetus is living or nonliving; human or nonhuman. Posted 2017-01-12 09:45:19
@Famousdebater : "Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]."
That is not even true. Today, it is a subject of human rights. Whether the rights apply to the fetus is up to expansion of rights by the state. Rights are societal constructs established and protected by the state, so the subject of the right to life is at the state's hand. To say that rights should apply to what is biologically living is making your own unfounded assumption.
I am aware that this is a debate, so you may not hold this at all, but that is usually just used as an excuse.Posted 2017-01-07 12:50:53
@Polymath the debate is over now so we can discuss the topic now if you'd like. Posted 2016-12-29 23:08:52
I never thought it would end! Posted 2016-12-29 13:54:58
@Famous. My acquiescence is affirmed. I will bother you no more.
What are comments for if not others opinions?Posted 2016-12-27 15:49:33
I'll be happy to discuss it afterwards though, but this could influence my opponent's case or the debate if you do this whilst it's going on. Posted 2016-12-27 08:02:59
Yeah, I'd prefer it if you didn't argue until the debate is over. Posted 2016-12-27 08:01:44
@Polymath rather than argue in the comments, why not try a debate on the topic yourself?Posted 2016-12-26 11:06:50
Gender inequality?. That is ludicrous since men cannot conceive and so the option is not available. The constraint is purely legal.
Pain. At 29-30 weeks the foetus can, provably, feel pain whilst before then it is only " suggested " that the foetus " probably " can not. To chance that the foetus may spend its last moments in total agony is unacceptable.
Posted 2016-12-26 11:04:24
@Polymath I, for one, doPosted 2016-12-26 10:50:39
Famous : The U.D.H.R. gives no rights to the unborn up to the moment of birth. This means they sanction abortion any time before actual birth. Do you share this view?.Posted 2016-12-26 10:23:41
Abortion was legal where I live before Roe v. Wade.Posted 2016-12-08 07:28:11
The debate is still going...Posted 2016-12-04 06:53:12
He just accepted now. So it couldn't have been the original time extension request. Posted 2016-11-16 08:03:05
@Famousdebater hmmm... @cooldudebro did you accept the extension?Posted 2016-11-15 04:48:09
@Random Stranger Quite a while. Posted 2016-11-15 04:44:55
@admin - It could possibly be a glitch because I requested a time extension and pretty much immediately afterwards I was granted more time to post. Though I'm not entirely sure if they're related. Posted 2016-11-15 04:44:33
I'm not sure.
Just to be clear - this can't be explained by time extensions, right?Posted 2016-11-15 03:08:08
How long has this debate been running?!Posted 2016-11-15 02:56:22
@admin no. I haven't changed anything Posted 2016-11-13 02:14:51
@admin no. I haven't changed anything Posted 2016-11-13 01:58:26
@Famousdebater that's suspicious since that would be roughly equivalent to the entire posting time.
@Kohai have you changed anything in the debates database table? I'll do some checks to work out what's going on.
There was once a glitch on the site where being featured on edeb's social media caused the timer to reset, for example (which I fixed of course), but clearly that's not the case here.Posted 2016-11-12 19:52:27
*that's (that song)Posted 2016-11-12 19:10:59
That song why I requested a time extension. To be fair, the same glitch happened for you in the previous round. It seems to happen sometimes. Posted 2016-11-12 19:10:21
@famousdebater
What? It said you had like 12 hours left now you have six days.Posted 2016-11-12 11:14:06
Great debate so farPosted 2016-11-07 15:59:27
Like before, I'm only available on weekends so a time extension would be appreciated Posted 2016-10-31 05:47:58
Well, there is 3 months to vote, and that is a long time. The winner of this debate won't be declared this year. It will be next year. Posted 2016-10-25 15:40:43
I got to judge this, but I always have a hard time with these good debates.Posted 2016-10-25 15:38:39
@Salam Hukkeri It's frowned upon to display arguments regarding the topic whilst the debate is still going. Even though I doubt either me or my opponent will pick up on anything you've said here it's best to wait until the debate is over before posting these comments. Posted 2016-10-19 05:32:29
Abortion is part of women life. Abortion is quiet common when any disgusting or any exeptions has been made to women at that time abortion came into exist. Abortion is always a cruel for the human society. Because some people abort the baby for the gender equality and some of them abort for nature of the family so abortion we seen is quiet common in everywhere in the world. For this thier is speciaal low amendended to protect the abortion without the proper reason. By doing abortion wome should me get worsed and she dealt with health issue so for this reason abortion doent work at all.... Posted 2016-10-19 03:57:42
No. Just been busy with various minor things. Posted 2016-10-16 09:08:01
@Famousdebater
School?Posted 2016-10-14 15:48:43
Can you accept the time extension please? I've been really busy and can only work on weekends. Posted 2016-10-12 02:29:38
In certain debates that can be true but it doesn't really apply to normative resolutions. Posted 2016-10-02 19:15:51
"If we manage to prove our position to be true this means that we win the debate."
I have heard people say that debates aren't about proving a position.
If I used a truism(series of them) in a debate as central to my case, I think people would think I am being unfair.Posted 2016-10-02 14:15:27
@admin
Wow that's really cool.Posted 2016-10-01 18:37:15
Yay! Yeah it's tricky because debates (and no other shoutboxes) post their shoutbox messages in a unique way. This tells the shoutbox script to use the CX notification and to enforce a different character limit etc. Very hard to test that if I don't have a debate also in a CX phase!Posted 2016-10-01 13:18:15
@admin
It works now. Thank you.Posted 2016-10-01 13:10:30
Really stabbing in the dark XD. How about now?Posted 2016-10-01 07:55:20
@admin No. It's still broken. Posted 2016-10-01 02:44:58
Try it again now. Did what I just did help?Posted 2016-10-01 01:00:59
@admin look at the last round cross examination of this debate http://www.edeb8.com/debate/That+the+government+should+not+place+any+restrictions+on+free+speech%5Cn-2/Posted 2016-10-01 00:39:44
@admin yes. I click on the cross examination button and I can type up a post as normal but when I submit it no text appears. Posted 2016-10-01 00:38:22
Question - do you guys see the "Engage in Cross-Examination" button at all?Posted 2016-09-30 22:48:37
Weird. Thanks for the tags. I'll look into it today.Posted 2016-09-30 08:19:13
@admin mine won't eitherPosted 2016-09-30 02:17:13
@admin
My cross-ex won't show up.Posted 2016-09-29 19:53:45
Ah, MRSGREN. Posted 2016-09-25 12:02:45
True. Posted 2016-09-24 13:15:18
That still doesn't make my case good. Posted 2016-09-24 08:51:35
Haha now you're just messing with me so many sources.Posted 2016-09-24 08:14:38
I'm not particularly impressed with my argument but oh well. :/Posted 2016-09-24 02:15:19
I'm going to do all of this over the weekend so expect my case to be in then. Posted 2016-09-20 07:56:36
You don't have to accept the time extension, it'll just mean that my case won't be as good as I planned it to be. Posted 2016-09-18 00:57:50
@BioHazard I don't have a lot of time so everything's going to be rushed. Posted 2016-09-16 02:33:29
@Famousdebater
What makes you think that?Posted 2016-09-15 14:41:01
I'm gonna try but my arguments are gonna suck
Aw.... Come on bro...Posted 2016-09-14 12:15:47
I don't have a lot of time for this anymore. :/Posted 2016-09-13 06:18:59