Check out the Tournament Ladder
@benmouse42 Thanks for your time judging. There was a couple of points that I'd like some clarification on?"Would have liked for Pro to point out you don't need a veto power"- I did actually point this out by pointing out that this already exists via existing laws and private agreements - 21:35"Bodily autonomy doesn't respond to everything, its just a weighing."- Maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining this, but bodily autonomy is a fundamental right which other rights are built on. You can't have choice without bodily autonomy. As I pointed out in the debate, it's the right which would be the basis for granting a fetus the right to not be aborted (to keep its body viable) and the husband the right to force the woman to bring a child to term (his property because of genetics). Did these points just not come across, or were they swallowed by the rest of the debate? How could I have done a better job of bringing these points more starkly into view?
Oh yer on bringing them more starkly into view.-earlier in the debate. Repeat if necessary -make the conclusion of the point before the logic of the point so I know where u r going with your analysis rather than trying to understand it in retrospect -be more explicit on how exactly your points interact with her analysis (small summaries of her points immeadiately followed by the flaw you find in them and then your rebuttal)
@sarahmiller I require a lot of clarifications on this judgment. 1. I don't much engage in bodily autonomy because I showed on my very first speech that the practice of abortion women do is highly because of the fear of jeopardizing future and financial inability. Their bodily autonomy which is in practice ( in form of abortion) is because of the burdens and this contract actually takes away this burden and help create better lives. 2. Con's every response to my argument was bodily autonomy. Problems with that: - Con never explains what happens when that bodily autonomy is violated. - Men shouldn't violate women's autonomy, but why? This is never answered in the debate. - Except then that, there's no point which shows it creates a better life for women. - He doesn't show why men taking over creates a bad consequence for women or child. His side runs on a very fact that bodily autonomy exists. 3. I have never focused or given more than a few seconds to say men should have a say, I don't know why you included that point as a major one in your judgment. 4. About risks of pregnancy v/s risks of abortion. Did you buy the idea that there is a risk of pregnancy but not the risk of abortion? Or were you neutral on this part? 5. About the kidney reference, of course, the state can't compel because there is not an emotional relationship between the state and the human. I didn't get your elaboration on this part. If in case, as you said, this debate wasn't to show which side benefits life in general, this debate wouldn't even have taken place. Because the word veto itself talks about 'autonomy' and how can the entire argumentation be whatever is already stated in the topic?
@sarahmiller If we just rephrase the topic. Men should be allowed to oppose women's decision ( veto ) if they contractually agree to take the full responsibility for the child. The argument Con has is: Men shouldn't be allowed to oppose.
Also, I am sorry if I sound aggressive on any of this. Haha, written comments can often be misleading. I am just seeking for explanations.
@enzilag Hey, I'm afraid that @sarahmiller has a minor operation and she won't be able to respond for a couple of days
@enzilag No problem. I will try to tackle this point-by-point. I always appreciate the feedback - makes me a better judge. And apologies for the delay in response as I did get my wisdom teeth removed today and would have been fairly incoherent in a reply earlier haha.1. Your first argument referencing the Gattmacher Institute study did not convince me that bodily autonomy should be thrown out, it only showed me the primary reason most women get an abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think con's argument suggesting that this type of policy would diminish the woman's autonomy was strong enough to keep the idea of autonomy relevant in this round. 2. Con elaborated on the idea that this type of veto would only restrict autonomy on one group, one group whose rights are already fairly limited when it comes to abortion, and further restriction is oppressive.3. The resolution was that men should be able to veto a women's right to an abortion, which is what your side was arguing - that is to say that men most definitely do have a say. I agree that there is a difference between "having a say" and a veto, in that a veto would give the man a disproportionate amount of say. 4. I was neutral on this point as there are health consequences for both events, regardless of whether or not they are "natural". 5. You're bringing up a new point here. An emotional relationship is not an objective, measurable phenomenon (as far as this debate has revealed); therefore, I'm not sure how one might argue this point (although I'd be interested to hear an elaboration).Finally, I reiterate my previous point about the difference between "veto" and "oppose". A veto is an absolute rejection, in this case, of the woman's decision. Opposition does not hold the same weight.I hope I helped clear this up. Again, I appreciate responses like this. Keeps me on my toes. :)
@tomokun Congrats for advancing to the next round! Please expect further details on your next debate later today@enzilag Great debate as always and even the judges were divided on this one :-)We opened registrations for the $5,000 Championship starting in January: http://bit.ly/2hDadW8
This is a great debate topic!!!
@tomokun Enjoyed this debate a lot. Loved it! Thank you so much.
@enzilag Likewise! :D We'll have to do it again sometime... I was SOOOOO NERVOUS!
@tomokun That's fine. It was your first and you did really good.
@tomokun Where are you from? You have a familiar face.
@enzilag I'm in the US, I'm Colombian and Sicilian. I get around though - feel free to friend me on FB. :)
6 minutes in. Wow @tomokun what a brilliant take on this topic. I'm interested to see how this one turns out.
@enzilag @tomokunHey guys, your second judge @sarahmiller will be coming tonight
@qallout_tournament Sure. What was the community vote?
@enzilag It was a tie 3-3 :-)
@tomokun Congratulations! This was one fun round. I would love to see more of you on this platform, I hope you take the best it offers. If you see any topics of mine that would interest you, feel free to accept the challenges.
@enzilag Likewise! We'll be sure to go at it again.
@enzilag Likewise! You were fierce! Looking forward to tackling another topic with you - if we can find one we disagree on. :p