Resolved: Abortion should be legal.............................................. On DDO

Opening ArgumentsDebate is an instrument of public policy, and is a critical component of democracy and policy making. It is not merely an exchange of ideas between two opponents. It also aims to educate the audience (public ) who have a vested interest on how policies are formed. So contrary to belief, debates are not just about debaters. The audience makes equal investments of time to understand and make critical judgment of both sides of the argument, makes decisive votes, and is therefore a crucial stakeholder and not a mere bystander. Instead of allowing abortion of debates, it is therefore a better policy to allow an audience to adopt an abandoned debate, and take the place of debaters who choose to abscond their responsibilities. This allows both an opportunity for a debater the choice to leave but allow the remaining debater and audience to continue to enjoy the debate by allowing it to proceed with an alternative (better) course and letting it run thru its natural conclusion. This is definitely better than completely abandoning a debate and leaving the rest of the active participants underwhelmed, bewildered and disappointed. The proponent of this debate made a crucial mistake when making a figurative parallel between abortion of DDO debates and abortion of unwanted pregnancy. The audiences who visit DDO do so because they want to see debates. It is never that they continue to visit DDO by accident. Allowing unwarranted abandonment of debates will not make DDO a better place. On the contrary, it will discourage responsible participation, and when rates of abandonment increase, it will encourage its audience to participate elsewhere. Regardless of category, a debate has a life of its own, and given its participatory nature, it is wrong to think that the choice to terminate it is merely exclusive to those who created it. Creating a debate is not merely a choice, it is also a responsibility. It is still important to provide debaters a choice to leave, however, this must be done responsibly (and not just for their sole benefit) while allowing everyone else to enjoy debates come to full fruition. There are thousands in the audience who want to be one making the arguments for an on-going live debate and not just to cast a vote later. Given the vested nature of policy making, when offered the opportunity, they will take the place of a debater who may chose not to do a good job. So it is wrong that abandoned debates would unnecessarily be a burden to the DDO community especially if the audience is also granted a choice to take a debater’s place. Creating a stand-by-debater system where an audience can co-opt him or herself as alternate in the event of abandonment creates a more vibrant debate community, one that would evolve to have a better appreciation of debates. Objections to the proponent’s arguments 1) Right to choose > Right to life While it is important to provide choice, there many pathways to facilitate it and should not be construed as exclusive to a choice to terminate. Given that the audience also made equal investments of time to participate to make critical judgments and to vote, choice to terminate a debate should not be made exclusive to the debaters alone, and should not be interpreted to trump the audience’s right to expect the debate come to its natural conclusion. Other forms of choice are available, and granting simultaneous choice for a debater to leave, and the choice for audience to take his/her place is a better approach. 2) Unable to care for the debate Parenting a debate is not exclusive to those who created it. Adoption is a better suited approach than termination. It’s a win-win for the debaters, the audience and to those who want to take the debater’s place especially if he/she knows he/she can do a better and more responsible job. 3) Debates conceived from someone being raped...... by debate challenges To terminate a debate because of rape is to justify crime by association. This was last practiced in Imperial China were families of a convicted felon up to the 4th degree are all sentenced to the same penalty by virtue of their association. A conceived debate, and participation on it, does not automatically become criminal simply by being instigated by a rapist debater. In the proponent’s legal system, it is better to be a rapist since at least it is a granted a choice, undergo due process and is given his day in court. The conceived debate (child) and its participating audience are unjustly not granted the same. 4) Debates pose a serious health risk................... To one's win record The quality of the debate is not determined by the win rate of each side but by the superiority of arguments and the level of engagement of the audience. Terminating the debate terminates the audience’s engagement, and the serious health risk rightfully is towards the participation of the debate community in general. 5) Better off on the taxpayers ('taxpayers ' is slang for 'forum posters') While it is important to provide a choice to leave, participating in a debate also comes with responsibility to other debaters and to the audience. Those who frequently participate debates only for them to continually leave them should be flagged so that future participants will be more discerning in engaging them. They can continue to take part in debates and should be unflagged with a better track record of uninterrupted participation. And when combined with the granting of audience’s the choice to adopt an abandoned debate, creates a system where most debates are fruitful and simply do not became a waste of anyone’s time, be it the debaters, the audience and the community in general.