removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

Hello all! So in todays speech as a road map 1. I will be going over the issue of topicality/ definitions. 2. Refutations of Affirmative/ Pro points. 3. Straightening out my own contentions. ok so to start off with a brief explanation of my topicality argument. My opponent has had no refutation to my definitions of the value and the criterion, he has not even disagreed with my definition of todays debate as a value case and so because of this my following definitions stand and he now must uphold my weighing criterion and value because he hasn"t provided one for himself, the definitions are now set as follow's Ectopic pregnancies: Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies that occur outside of the natural environment for a pregnancy to occur. Source: Mayo clinic.org Equivalent: equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. Source: Webster dictionary. com Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Removing tubes with baby in it: The removal of a fallopian tube with a fetus inside it because of some sort of life threatening situation that the mother is in. Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy by removing the fetus. Source: medilexicon.com This is a value debate Criterion: human treatment Value: Morality My opponent should already simply loose based on the fact that she has yet to provide any definitions even a VALUE! She should loose also because she doesn't seem to understand the proper structure of a debate, you must present you"re own ideas backed with ether logical or factual evidence, explain why you"re idea is better, point out flaws in your opponents arguments, and finally you must prove why the argument you presnted was better then your opponents. Ok so now to address my opponents points 1. No dissection: I stated that just taking the baby out of the mother is inhuman in refutation to this point I used our definition of abortion to support my argument, my opponents refutation to this was simply and I quote "con merely says the distinction between taking the baby out and taking it out in a fallopian tube, is that doing it by itself without the tube or something is "inhuman". this is a conclusory statement and doesn't really argue the differences." As my opponent clearly stated in the resolution we are talking about the MORAL difference of the two and by one being more inhuman rather then the other by the definition of morality or even the basic definition of different, Something being less inhuman then something else is not a the moral equivalent and does argue the differences. She also talks a lot about the "double effect" not being a valid argument, So how is something that we"ve built our self defense and insanity pleas off of not a real moral argument (http://plato.stanford.edu...) . 2. Morality My opponent states "but, most moral theologicans and ethicists say they think there is a difference. and if we accept that, i would argue that there isn't much difference in doing it with a tube attached v not attached. it's really a technicality if it's attached. and again, all con has provided to say otherwise is the conclusory statement that it"s"inhumane"." Ok so first off if my opponent s going to complain about the topic that I would like to point out she picked then she has to better then this. How is saving a baby and not saving a baby a "technicality" A technicality implies that someone is getting around something. No the person who would be getting around something if we just allowed for babies to be "taken out" would be the Affirmative team they would be getting around the laws of what a legal and safe abortion is. Just as a brief note my opponent has not provided any sources for her argument and it isn"t even logically based. She"s making claims that have no factual backing whatsoever and so her claims shouldn"t be bought at all. Also she yet again committed a logical fallacy "if you dont view that as a valid distinghisment, which i can sympathize" She"s making an appeal to Emotion which shows us that she is weak in her argumentation and can"t back her arguments with anything other then what she thinks. She also has not tied any of her points and ideas back to the weighing criterion/value today. Ok so now to move on to my own conntentions 1. Legality a. State/government: My point was simply this the difference between "just taking the baby out" and taking it out in the tubes is LEGALLY different. My opponent in her refutation to this tree to make it out to be a moral claim that was simply a personal "belief". First off my opponent has no idea what my personal beliefs are. Secondly laws are based in reason and fact so your refutation to this point is completely invalid because you didn"t understand the argument. b. Crime: My opponent has no refutation to the fact that by enacting her idea thousands of people would be breaking the law which counter to her argument does create significant moral dilemma. If she had defined her case as one of policy and created a plane this argument could still be standing but because she neglected to do that my point is significantly more valid then hers. 2. Human Life a.Morality: Through out this debate my opponent has tried to say that i haven"t shown any real difference besides its inhuman. Ok something being inhuman is a HUGE moral difference and the fact that she didn"t get that from our definition (which she had the opportunity to provide and even negate) should be a main factor in you"re voting decision, if she can"t even bother to try and understand the basic definition provided today why should she win todays debate. b. Human treatment: Her refutation to this was that we would be able to "forget about the mother being harmed", the mother will only end up being harmed if you take her utters out band by suggestion that we should just "take the baby out your killing the baby and the only way your suggestion could possibly work would be if you took out the utters and well which I would like to point would render the mother infertile. taking out one of her tubes would not do this because she has two. Basic biology supports my argument here. So what you Judges have seen in todays debate is two things. One a substantial abuse of logic and gapping holes in a case. My opponent didn"t even bother to provide definitions, much less tag line her own contusions. Next she left a whole sub point untouched and i should simply win because her case wasn"t actually there it was all just refutations to my case she never backed her original claims. Also she never ties her points back to the value or criterion which means her points have no impact which means that they shouldn"t be considered valid arguments. Furthermore she never bothers to provide any kind of citations be it logic or factual. I have literally counted zero meaning everything she has said today is just a claim. Now to move on to her abuse go logic. So my opponent has not committed one but two major logical fallacies in todays round she has tried to sway you judges with an appeal to you emotions which I would think you would be offend by this simply because I trust you are all rational and logical people who look at the arguments rather then you"re feelings. The second was the logical fallacy of Ad nauasum she says the same thing over and over again hoping that you will hear it so many times it starts to sound like fact. Because of this massive abuse of logic she should loose todays round. I have given you a clear argument and tied my points back to the criterion and value, i have not committed any logical fallacies, and I have both successfully refuted my opponents points and contained to carry my own. I also was forced to take up the affirmative burden of providing definitions but I took in stride. So thank you all for reading all of this, I hope your finals week is good (i don"t know if its everyones its just mine) may the best argument win!