Resolved: The United States Federal Government should end its public funding for Planned Parenthood.

My opponent has violated the rules that he set for the debate, and I think the voters should punish him in the way he suggested, which is to award me all 7 points. I"ll get into that in a minute. Lannan is a good member of the site, and though he should automatically lose all 7 points, he deserves an explanation as to why, so anybody awarding me all 7, with no further explanation other than "rules broken", will be reported for vote bomb. With that being said, I do deserve all 7 points and here is why; From Round one (please pay special attention to the underlined portions "Rules First Round is Terms and defintions by Pro, Acceptance by Con. Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALS Third Round is Rebuttals. Forth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion. No Semantics, the definitions provided are what is to be used in this debate .No Trolling. BOP is shared. No K's. If any of the above rules are violated, all 7 points go to the opposition. The rule is that round 3 is for rebuttals and round 2 is for constructive arguments. My opponent has violated the rules by elaborating on his argument concerning the Hyde amendment in round 3. He deserves to lose every single point as a punishment for this. Now if you want to be really nice (and I don"t encourage this because Lannan is an experienced debater and knows better), I should still get conduct and argument points. There is no ifs ands or buts here also. My opponent"s expansion on the Hyde argument was not a part of his rebuttals, it"s literally an expansion on his opening argument. He"s had this debate in the challenge section for about 10 days and has had plenty of time to research and cut down on his arguments to fit in the allotted space. From Round 2 "I will have to go into this last contention a litle more indepth next round, but I'm out of characters." From Round 4 "My opponent states that I am off topic, but once again this is a key part in the debate of which I had to continue my elaboration in my 3rd round." I"m sorry Lannan, you violated your own rules and deserve to lose, but for any judges not satisfied with that, I"ll continue. Planned Parenthood Prevents Abortions This section of the debate can be summed up with the following excerpt from Round 2; "the Guttmacher institute 345,000 abortions were prevented by Planned Parenthood in 2013 alone. "Planned Parenthood is far and away the biggest provider in this space. Of the 6.7 million women who rely on public programs to pay for contraceptives, 2.4 million of them " 36 percent " do so at Planned Parenthood"s 817 clinics across the country" By providing contraceptives to millions of low-income, American women, the Guttmacher Institute (a non-profit that supports abortion rights) estimates the Title X program prevented 345,000 abortions in 2013 alone." My opponent completely ignores this argument, failing to contest a single one of the arguments or statistics I cited. The impact here is clear and since it goes unrefuted it stands. 345,000 abortions prevented, because of all the help they provide low income women and families, such as myself and Tracey, and in some areas no alternatives exist for the services Planned Parenthood freely provides. Good Economic Sense I provided good economic arguments for Planned Parenthood, I"ll use an excerpt from round 2 for here: "The Guttmacher Institute has found that for every dollar invested in family planning about four are saved. Why is that? Pregnancy is very expensive, as is raising a child, for women who can"t afford it. "There is no better preventative investment than family planning," Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler says. After all, the cost burden shifts to the public sector for children who are born into poverty" "But there"s another cost that all of us feel when women are denied access to family planning: "Women can"t do their jobs, create new jobs, or add to the country"s economic well-being if they can"t control their fertility," she points out. Women make up nearly half of the workforce and help drive the U.S. economy. If we"re constantly at risk of becoming pregnant all the time, it is very difficult to do our jobs, particularly with the lack of social programs that benefit us or help with balancing work and family. "It"s as important a tool to us as education and health care," she says" My opponent doesn"t respond to my arguments that funding Planned Parenthood saves a ton of money. He also drops my following point, which I think is important when evaluating any moral arguments from Lannan. If he drops the argument, than the judges should accept that the argument stands and take a close look at that. We kinda have to look at one issue at a time when it comes to creating policy. Reality tells us that we're not going to massively overhaul the system. That sort of thing would require a massive revolution, coup de taut or foreign invasion. All things which are incredibly immoral with a representative government. Conclusion I won"t respond to any of my opponent"s counter rebuttals in the final round, because he can"t respond to mine, but I will like to go over a few important points I brought up in round 3, to show why Lannan lost this debate. ( in my opinion) Perfect and Imperfect Duties I"ve already explained the difference between perfect and imperfect duties, and how Kant specifically stated that perfect duties should always be performed and imperfect duties sometimes performed. Me pointing out that portion of Kant"s philosophy is enough to nullify Lannan"s first argument. He honestly fails to even qualify P1 as well. " P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties." Why Lannan? He never explains this. The categorical imperative he is using as a foundation for his argument even states this is wrong. The only time he bothers to defend P1 is with bare assertions, which are close to being incoherent. His argument has been refuted by Kant, because my opponent misunderstood Kant. To copy a part of the quote Lannan provides from Kant. " while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form "One must sometimes and to some extent (perform) Moral Hazard Again, this argument is irrelevant to the debate. Subsidizing services to the poor for free, doesn"t hurt innovation. You only hurt innovation, when you subsidize things that are marketable. Though abortions are marketable, this isn"t what is subsidized by PP. What"s coming out of the tax payer"s wallet is stuff the poor isn"t buying, and therefore providing it does nothing to disincentivize anything going on in the market place. There is no market for telling a 14 year old girl to use protection avoid sex to prevent STDs. There is helping me and Tracey apply for Wic, learn how to use our insurance and give us the emotional support lacking in our families. Voters Voters, my opponent has violated his own rules. Contentions in round 3 that don"t qualify as rebuttals should be ignored, he should lose all 7 points. Even if he doesn"t lose all 7 points, due to your pity, he should still lose a conduct point and an argument point. Lannan Thanks for the debate Lannan. It was fun.