PDA

View Full Version : VOTING: for Debate Topic 1 (abortion) Sexorcist VS Oly


Aic713
01-27-2006, 12:44 AM
Okay now that the debate is done, I didn't even notice it was lmao.. I'm not really sure how Kari wanted to work this.. So I will do it this way. If this is wrong Kari please just edit it.

Debate Topic 1 (abortion) Sexorcist VS Oly

Who do you think had the better argument & debate?

You can give your reasons & quote the both Josh & Oly on their debates if you'd like. Make sure you include your vote though. Okay. The votes will go on for 4 days.

*~Leah Bia~*
01-27-2006, 11:43 AM
Ok.

I was reading this debate thinking, "What the fuck are these two talking about?" LOL

I will quote both good and bad parts from their debate and figure my vote out along the way. I don't know what they were on, but they both went WAAAAAY off topic and just started babbling about useless nonsense.

Let's start with the opening of each side of the debate:
Josh: First of all, this arguement is not about religion. This arguement is not about women's rights or any other side issue that get thrown at us in these debates.The questions presented to us are "Is a fetus alive and human?" and therefore by extension "Is abortion in fact killing?"

Oly:my arguement is not about a religion its about our constitution to an extent. here in america we are told that we have all the freedom in the world, we can do almost anything when we want. but when it comes to having a child people throw a fit over it, mainly because they think "baby, oh so cute". but people argue constantly saying that we are killing a living human when we commit abortions.

Now...for the REAL question that was at hand:
Abortion is perfectly fine no matter what reason you have.
Josh---Disagree
Oly---Agree

So...um....yeah. You both failed to even address the topic at hand to begin the debate, I was disappointed. You should have started it with the topic question/statement followed by, "I agree/disagree with this statement because..." and continued the debate from there.

You both went way off topic.

Josh started out good by saying: I believe the awnser is obviously yes and by accounts. All cells are considered alive by modern science. And a fetus is in fact a multi-celled organism. Furthermore, the nature of the life in the woman is human. It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature, its essence is undeniably human.Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.

But then he continued on and based his whole argument on his question that he decided that he was debating instead of the DEBATE QUESTION. He formed his own little question and based his whole debate on that, completely ignoring the question at hand.

Oly just went even farther off topic than even possible for Josh.

This was by far the stupidest comment I have ever heard when debating on abortion: I am sorry the fetus is not alive. it only has a heart beat that is all.

^ I am sorry to be the one to tell you but all you need to be alive is a heartbeat and I agree with Josh in saying that if given the chance to become a human-that is exactly what a fetus is. If you kill it, as with anything, then you are right, it is not alive.

Another example of going waaaay off topic and basing the whole argument on useless nonsense is: if we were to base things off of heart beats and not brain activity, then people could technically live for ever, because then we would simply just have to hook them up to a machine and then that could keep their heart going. because if were to keep people is alive on machines then that would basically make machines god.

Umm...that's great and all, but how does this have ANYTHING to do with ABORTION IS PERFECTLY FINE NO MATTER WHAT REASON YOU HAVE?

I also found it funny that in this type of topic someone would quote 50 cent to make their argument better.its like 50 cent says in his song that in some places they are so desperate to get rid of the babies the women just throw them in the trash or just lay them somewhere to die. =))

another thing if a woman accidently becomes pregnant, and for say she is poorer than most, now when she has this kid its going to cost her more money she does not have, plus giving her self a worse life and then also the child, so then you are basically wiping out 2 lifes instead of 1.

^^ Ok. If a woman becomes pregnant, she is the one to blame. She has a CHOICE. She makes killing the baby an option for herself to have. Just as she makes throwing a baby in the trash for whatever selfish reason. There are plenty of methods of birth control, the most effective is obviously abstinence. ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. If it is going to cost her more money she does not have then maybe she shoulda though about that before she opened her legs, eh? lol It's not like abortions are free. They range from $200-$700.
Who's wiping out 2 lives instead of 1? And who is to say who's life is more important, a woman or her baby that she wants to KILL? Doesn't the innocent baby deserve a shot at life whether the mother is poor or not? There are plenty of wealthy or even just financially stable families that are looking to adopt. That statement was weak.

Ok, I have commented on all the stuff I wanted to. Based on the debate, I would have to vote for JOSH. They both went off topic, but he didn't go as far off! lol

Crazee
01-27-2006, 12:27 PM
I was just trying to point out that babies are alive, and not just parasites.

The whole junk about even single cell organisms being alive was just saying that if we have groups dedicated to the sanctity of animal life, how can we murder something with 100% liklihood of becoming a child?

I'm not used to debating in text though, so whatever...it sounded doper to me lol. It was all accurate though.;)

Thanks.

Oly never had a second arguement, though...

Oly
01-27-2006, 12:40 PM
i'd vote for josh. its not about just being cool and voting for the competition but i feel he made his point stronger then i did though like he said i didnt make a 2nd arguement though even i were to it would've taken probaly until this weekend to do. but i just want to say for the record this does not in anyway change my opinion or anything i said i just feel josh got his point across better then i was able to.

Crazee
01-27-2006, 12:47 PM
It's all good in my hood man, you aquitted yourself well. :)

Aic713
01-27-2006, 08:50 PM
I'm going to extend the voting period for a total of 7 days (6 now). :)

As for my vote, I'm so bad at this because I don't want my feelings on this debate topic to play into who I vote for :( Both of you had good arguments & on point.. But it's a matter of who was better, and I can't choose one of you guys.

Pssssss- Can we have a rematch lol? I want to debate Josh on this topic or Leah, We've done it already before.. So why not again lol ;)

Crazee
01-28-2006, 12:22 AM
I honestly could have done better, debating after arguing with family is a bad idea.

I really wanted an awnser to my "Why is it a woman's right but euthanasia isn't? question.

*~Leah Bia~*
01-28-2006, 11:08 AM
^ Yeah....too bad that's not the topic.

Crazee
01-28-2006, 12:55 PM
Um, yeah it is.

I'm supposed to prove why abortion is wrong...pointing out inconsistiencies with the supporters of abortion seems applicable to me. To each their own, though.

Saoirse
01-28-2006, 12:57 PM
Before I vote. Let me briefly state my opinion regarding abortion. This is what i wrote in another thread :

In general i am against abortion, but i would accept it in the following cases:
1) If the pregnancy took place due to rape.
2) If the pregnancy has a negative effect on the mother's health. basically, if keeping the baby would threat the mother's life
I don't believe in abortion, in the case of poverty though...Many women have abortion, because they can't afford raising a child. I don't think that's right.

Also, I won't comment a lot on what Josh & Oly wrote. I'll just give brief reasons for my votes!!

Josh
Looks like I'm the first one here. Let me introduce my position and outline my general proofs and reasoning. First of all, this arguement is not about religion. This arguement is not about women's rights or any other side issue that get thrown at us in these debates.The questions presented to us are "Is a fetus alive and human?" and therefore by extension "Is abortion in fact killing?"

I believe the awnser is obviously yes and by accounts. All cells are considered alive by modern science. And a fetus is in fact a multi-celled organism. Furthermore, the nature of the life in the woman is human. It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature, its essence is undeniably human.Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities
I agree that Humans are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities
However i disagree with the rest;) A fetus won't be classified as a human yet. So No point for Josh!

It is 0-0 so far:p

Why is this? Firstly, A person born without arms and legs is still human. A person who cannot speak is still human.A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.By logic, since we cannot murder those that are barely human but fully alive...why can we kill something with the potential to be a completely healthy baby. Let's not be fooled, that's what the current policies enable us to do.

This is a good point, but it is very broad.
I'd give you 1/2 a point for it!

What is growing in the womb is nothing like an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human characteristics?. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?

I believe that alone is nothing to win the arguement, but that's the end of my opening statement.

The problem is that you are not talking about the reasons for abortion. You are generalizing too much!
What about those who were raped? Or the women whose health is threatened by the baby??

I would give you 1/2 a point for this. :)

Oly
my arguement is not about a religion its about our constitution to an extent. here in america we are told that we have all the freedom in the world, we can do almost anything when we want. but when it comes to having a child people throw a fit over it, mainly because they think "baby, oh so cute".
Not very convincing!
0 points.

but people argue constantly saying that we are killing a living human when we commit abortions. but i am sorry the fetus is not alive. it only has a heart beat that is all. if we were to base things off of heart beats and not brain activity, then people could technically live for ever, because then we would simply just have to hook them up to a machine and then that could keep their heart going.
Great point. One point for you.

So far, it is 1-1

case i'd like to argue is back when abortions were illegal before people started trying to do them,themselves which then resulted in them causing great bodily harm to them selves and sometimes even death. its like 50 cent says in his song that in some places they are so desperate to get rid of the babies the women just throw them in the trash or just lay them somewhere to die
Also another good point. People should have the freedom of choice. ;)
1 point for oly.

another thing if a woman accidently becomes pregnant, and for say she is poorer than most, now when she has this kid its going to cost her more money she does not have, plus giving her self a worse life and then also the child, so then you are basically wiping out 2 lifes instead of 1. and this is opening my statement

I disagree here. Money should never be an issue. You can be rich oneday, and then the next day lose all your money.
No point for oly.
So far 2-1:)

I'm sorry my friend, but we are not guarenteed the right to do whatever we want. This isn't a question of choosing not to personally have a baby...everyone is free to make that decision. It is not restricting a woman's right to prevent abortion , on the grounds that the fetus is human, because a woman is not allowed to kill anyone else dependant on her.
Good point. 1 point for Crazee.
The only person who legally can decided when their life is over...is themself.The constitution and all other sensible documents support the idea that depriving someone else of their life is murder. To suggest a woman has the right to essentially cancel a birth she already started is to put the woman's personal interests and comfort above the value of life of the future child.And there is no doubt the fetus is a future child. This is not denying a woman's rights anymore than prohibiting her from murder, stealing, or perjury is denying her rights.Rights come with responsibilities. Choosing to kill another is a great responsibility that needs to be taken seriously. This is why we have trials. However, in the womb, no trial is necessary, just the desire of the mother to take the life that is growing in her womb.

I diagree here...But you did say a few good things, so 1/2 a point for ya!

If the fetus is not a human and in fact is a parasite then you win. If you can provide one substantial reasonable arguement as to why the fetus isn't human...go ahead. Note that even the finest scientests and philosophers that support abortion aren't completely sure what defines a human being. So, good luck on that.

However, "the fetus is not alive. it only has a heart beat that is all."

That's cold, man. Presumptious as well. Where's your proof, logic, explanation, etc etc?
Not really very convincing. Rather emotional.
No point for Josh.


I will stop here. (Since oly didn't write anything else, he won't be given anymore points)
I really rushed through this vote, I'm sorry:p I don't have enough time to argue with you guys.

Personally, i thought Josh presented his argument better than Oly. But i tend to agree with Oly more (apart from the "poverty is an ok reason for abortion" part)

Finally, I guess my vote goes for Josh!:o
2 for oly: 2.5 for Josh.

Crazee
01-28-2006, 01:25 PM
lol Man...

The topic was "abortion is always right"

That's why I didn't break up rape or incest...those are sketchy emotional topics. And in the end, they didn't fit. Because even if they were ok, it wouldn't have anything to do with my arguement. My arguement is that given no complications or sickness, a fetus is guarenteed to become a human being. Like at the end I pointed out that ninth month abortions are still allowed...at this point it's almost entirely human! How can that be allowed?!

*achem* Sorry

Saoirse
01-28-2006, 02:09 PM
^ I disagree with the 9 month abortions. I too think they shouldn't be allowed.

Plus if the debate was about "abortion is always right", then in my opinion it is a wrong debate;) How can abortion be always right?It can't be always right or always wrong...

I'm sorry, but this debate doesn't make sense!
I guess i didn't pay attention to the ".........always right" part:)

*~Leah Bia~*
01-28-2006, 03:09 PM
Euthanasia is completely different. People are at least able to consent to their own death with the help of someone else, they are making the choice not to live ANYMORE...for whatever the reason. With abortion, the baby never stands a chance. The choice is made for them.

I don't know about other states but I am almost positive that 9 month abortions are NOT allowed. I believe that 4 1/2 is the cut off.

If you look at statistics (which would have been great to use in a debate) they show that the most abortions occur in females from 15-19 and that is nation wide....so irresponsibility is the issue at hand. Inability to use BIRTH CONTROL or condoms. That's it. The rape to abortion ratio is not that high at all.

I wish I woulda got this topic cause you two failed to use the statistics to create a good debate. No offense.

That's why I didn't break up rape or incest...those are sketchy emotional topics. And in the end, they didn't fit. Because even if they were ok, it wouldn't have anything to do with my arguement. My arguement is that given no complications or sickness, a fetus is guarenteed to become a human being.

^^ Rape and incest have everything to do with this topic. Euthanasia has nothing to do with it. There is a difference between a fetus never given a chance to live and a living human choosing to die. That's more suicide, in my opinion. However rape and incest are variables of abortion, so to speak. You just go way off topic Josh and create like you say yourself ("my arguement") your own arguements and just start rambling. FACTS FACTS FACTS are what make a good debate ;)

Aic713
01-28-2006, 04:09 PM
Josh, I'm almost sure that abortions aren't legal after the 4th month.. Or something like that, I know for sure it's not 9 months. However in the law, it's still not killing another human, Only if the fetus/baby whatever takes a breath *outside* of the mothers womb is it considered killing another human. That's by law.

Aic713
01-28-2006, 04:12 PM
I wish I woulda got this topic cause you two failed to use the statistics to create a good debate. No offense.


Rematch me against you.

Yeah I used statistics in my debate, I think bringing in the facts are always good.. Because well isn't that what a debate is supposed to be? We're arguing facts.

Crazee
01-28-2006, 04:52 PM
I used logic...

Eh, I could care less about all your backwards rambling. No offence, but everytime you two argue abortion neither one of you looks right. That's why I'm trying to logically prove a fetus is human...to me that's the only way pro-lifets will ever win.

It seems like you two WILL use facts, but it's way too...personal. I prefer to use cold logic. If I can't kill an old man that relies me entirely, then why can I fetus which does the same thing?

It's a perfectly logical arguement, and maybe you two just don't really believe it. That's cool. But I argued the question the best way I knew how.Is there a need to pester me 5 times about the same thing?

My thought process was:

"Abortion is wrong"

Step 2: Prove abortion is wrong

Why do I think abortion is wrong?

Step 3: Fetuses are human, so I prove that we have no right to kill them.

Essentially, all the major issues have been disscussed a million times. I wanted to say something different, that's all. :)

Crazee
01-28-2006, 04:53 PM
Now let's chill...start a new topic and do your arguement. You've done it before, and you'll do it again.lol

Kari
01-28-2006, 05:41 PM
Everyone that voted in this thread, please vote in the poll (I put it so your name can show up so if Leah and the other chick that voted doesn't show up I'll add them to the poll)

*~Leah Bia~*
01-30-2006, 01:15 PM
I don't know if I'd be able to argue for abortion. lol

But we could do this.

Dia
02-01-2006, 10:04 PM
even though I think that abortion isnt really as awful as Josh does I have to agree with Crazee because this is about who proved their point better and Crazee did much better explaining

Aic713
02-03-2006, 01:07 AM
Voting period DONE.. I'm going to close & un sticky the debate threads since there not needed anymore. This will remain open if anyone else wants to say something for a few days.

WINNER= JOSH

Oly, has to pay Josh $25.00