single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

Notice that I referenced the American PUBLIC. This includes more than "several people you know." Also, on the same subject, "several people you know" are most likely not several people I know. Not that I question your honesty, but without actually being able to SEE your sources, it is impossible to verify that they exist. Given that you are biased towards your side in today's debate (much as I am biased towards mine) it is possible that you have provided untrue sources. Also, given that we do not know these sources, we have no way of knowing how much value to place on the evidence. This should be considered, and your sources should not be considered credible. Of course some people say that it's a sin to vote for someone who is pro-choice. That's because there are some people who aren't pro-choice. I said that abortion was not the ONLY issue, not that it wasn't an issue at all, and much of the controversy surrounding it has to do with ethics. "most of the nation doesn't vote on that issue alone." So what you're saying here is that the issue you are talking about really isn't that much of an issue at all. In other words, single-issue voting has no impact, and there is no reason for us to care about it in the first place. Also, what exactly does this have to do with single-issue voting? It seems more like an abortion argument. "My position is you can't vote solely on that issue, and when I say democrats can't be overlooked, I'm saying those bent solely on that issue are overlooking that demoracts will change things" So once again, you're not talking about single-issue voting in general, you're talking specifically about abortion? Also, are you saying that people should not vote on abortion because there's a chance that Democrats will not want change? If enough people voted specifically on abortion, wouldn't that mean that pro-choice Democrats would not be put in office? Clearly this is not happening, so once again, there are no significant negative repercussions to the issue. So you're saying that the only game plan currently in place for pro-lifers is to vote for people who will change the current policy more to their liking? Isn't that what elected politicians are supposed to do, is placate to their supporters? Once again, if enough pro-life politicians were voted in, then the situation would change. This means that single-issue voting is NOT A PROBLEM CURRENTLY. But if it is pointless, then that means that it is of no consequence, correct? Once again, you have proved that there are absolutely no ramifications to single-issue voting. I should clarify: Slavery was abolished because enough people wanted it to be abolished that the North was able to win the war. Basically, the public wanted something enough to fight for it, and so things changed. Those "few Southern states" happened to be about half of America at the time, and so their seceding would have been a major blow. But to answer your point, though the Southern states were a minority this does not mean that they wanted to change. Had the North not intervened, they would have kept on having slaves. The vast majority of the North had a problem with this (and the attempt at seceding in particular), and so stepped in with the military. How do you plan to prevent people from voting on single issues? If it matters enough to them, then they will have a vote weighted by the issue. You have provided no plan to stop this from happening. "I'm not saying people who vote only on that issue are "not allowed" I'm only saying it's unwise. " So here you're saying that although single-issue voting is unwise, you don't have a problem with it? "I'm not saying it's wrong to vote only on one issue, especially if there's a decent chance for change on that issue, but if no decent chance, then it's not wise to vote that way." So you're actually okay with single-issue voting, as long as it changes things? At first you said that you were against all single-issue voting, but here you say that people should not vote solely on abortion because that would be pointless. But that isn't talking about ALL single-issue voting, is it? It's specifically talking about abortion, which may or may not be a good representative of single-issue voting. Thank you for clearing that up. You might want to provide some other examples, however, since abortion is the only one that has been mentioned. In summary, the Pro team (me) should win today's debate because: -The Con team has provided no reason at all why the issue is important, and actually stated that the issue is NOT important multiple times in today's debate. If the issue is not important, then why is it necessary to change it? -The Con team has provided no way to SOLVE this supposed problem. -The Con team has not clarified their stance adequately, making it impossible for the Pro team to attack them properly. In fact, the Con team has actually changed their stance when confronted with arguments that contradict them, showing that they aren't really sure whether they are right or not. -All of the Con team's individual arguments have been disproved. Clearly all of these points should result in a vote in affirmation in today's debate.