@risa_lozano Thanks for the feedback!!
@elinor Congrats for advancing to the next round!@ninomistretta1 Hard luck on this one but hope to see you at our next tournament starting next week - registration is now open:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
A really excellent point made by @elinor at around 7:55 that was failed to be adequately responded to was when there is an area of unclear moral imperative, such in the case of personhood of a fetus, then surely it is consistent with libertarian belief to say that the final descion should rest with the individual, not the state, which is clearly more in line with pro-choice than pro-life.
I am a pro-life libertarian, but I have to give it to PRO here. CON hardly seemed convinced of his own position in the beginning with statements like "I don't know if X is true" instead of saying "X is not true" or "There is not sufficient evidence to claim X is true" which would have been a more convincing rebuttal. He seemed to dismiss the NAP in the beginning when I thought it was his biggest asset going into this debate, but he finally began to use the NAP in the 3rd round I think, and it was probably his strongest moment, but PRO had a good answer. She has stronger arguments and rebuttals all while sticking to libertarian principles and that's why I voted PRO, but great job both of you.
Great debate! @elinor and @ninomistretta1 I've watched every libertarian and abortion debate on this site to date, yours was the last, and also the best! Which is impressive considering how much of this I've heard by the time I got here.@elinor you really put forward impressive arguments here. By far the best on your side of this issue. You were articulate and organized in thought and form. Super helpful for the project I'm doing.@ninomistretta1 You were well spoken and made good rational points. You could have done with a more "positive" case in the sense that you could have argued strongly against the resolution and not just throwing doubt at Pro's case.I voted Pro, pretty easily, because while Pro made a strong positive case for the resolution, Con merely cast doubt as to the resolution but never truly argued compellingly against it. While pro had multiple lines of argument in support. Con mostly had one line of reasoning against and didn't strongly commit to it as saying we must not support pro-choice as libertarians, only that it would be reasonable not to. Con opened the door, but didn't guide us through. Pro takes us by the hand and shows us through the doorway of the resolution.