Having it both ways

What my opponent may want and what a debate actually is, are two different things. All opinions are equally valid therefore null in terms of quality for voting. Reasoning must be asserted. My opponent claims pro choicers are at odds with China's policy, but refutes my use of pro choice to explain it. He makes a body to a claim but wants no body to argue it. In essence, my opponent seeks to devalue the nature of debate to his own ends. My opponent said: "This is irrelevant since I framed my question towards the challenger, which, in this case would be you. I'm not concerned with how Pro-Choice activists distinguish themselves from one another. I'm only concerned with the opinions of my antagonists. I want to know how my challenger can reconcile the two while remaining cogent and consistent with their beliefs. I suspect this is a distraction to get away from the heart of the issue." I didn't know we weren't debating my opinion. I had the idea that we were debating pro-choice's opinion on the issue. But if my opponent wishes to change the course of the debate, I am willing to fight that end as well. Usually my personal opinion doesn't have a thing to do with how I debate a topic, but if this is turning into a debate about my beliefs - so be it. Opponent when I mentioned other ways baby girls were being killed: "But that isn't what we are discussing. The rest of your post simply devolves further in to off topic strawmen and non-sequiturs. The argument is transparently specific to abortion." This, to me, is a straw man assumption (something else my opponent accuses me of). He doesn't understand that I am trying to validate why a pro-choicer would choose to go against what is happening in China. I don't appreciate my opponent accusing me of fallacies he himself is committing. My point was valid and consistent to my argument and to his first post's question. I don't want to play smoke and mirror games in debate (I prefer cold, hard facts). So, since my opponent has finally stated his personal rules for the debate, I will now use them to answer his question. "Is it wrong to abort more females than males?" My answer is yes. And now I must validate my answer. Because my opponent said that abortion was irrelevant to the question (that he is now asking straight forward, I must remind), then I can take this in any direction I want. We are not, after all, arguing world issues. We are now arguing my opinion. From this point on, as my opponent has allowed, facts are irrelevant. Technically, my argument merely has to be any position that supports and answers the question as a "yes" and is "cogent" and "consistent" with my beliefs. So, now, technically, my opponent must prove that my opinion is not cogent and consistent with my belief system, and that is all. That is what he has technically proposed as the rule for answering his single question. Yes, I believe that it is wrong to abort more females than males. I believe it is wrong for the following reasons and situations (which I have mentioned some in my earlier post as well). 1. Imbalance of the population's sex types will cause damage to the nation. It has already been seen to cause heightened prostitution, violence, and crime. 2. You risk the return of dowry system where arranged marriages become a profitable enterprise. 3. You risk a generation of fewer children. 4. You risk a generation so male dominant that you essentially have a patriarchal society. 5. You undermine the farming class. 6. You risk sky ponies. 7. You usher in an era of purple grass. Now to prove that my stance is cogent with my belief system *reminder, he only asked for cogency*. Vi's belief system revolves around the personal happiness and independence of man. Women will not lead happy/independent lives in a patriarchal society. _____________________________________________________________________ It is within Vi's belief system that woman should not be subject to a patriarchal society. Dwindling the female population risks a patriarchal society. My argument is cogent. And obviously, my argument is consistent. I have not shyed away from saying that women should not be aborted more than men. ---Now to prove how my pro-abortion stance fairs against this opinion of mine. --- My belief system puts human happiness above all else. I do believe abortion is feminist, but when it turns into something anti-feminist it must be shot down. Yes, it is wrong to abort more females than males because it causes population imbalance (etc. listed above). In my belief system, as long as population is watched and kept in check, abortion, to me should be allowed. Sad that my opponent tossed different types of pro-choice out the window. "This is irrelevant since I framed my question towards the challenger, which, in this case would be you. I'm not concerned with how Pro-Choice activists distinguish themselves from one another. I'm only concerned with the opinions of my antagonists. I want to know how my challenger can reconcile the two while remaining cogent and consistent with their beliefs." Essentially I have just shown him my type of pro-choice.