Pro-Lifers Are Lost

Thanks to my opponent for the final argument. I don't feel that my opponent cited anything objective, while he failed to offer proof for any of his subjective statements. His BoP isn't even close to fulfilled in this debate. With that in mind, I'll make short rebuttals in order not to tax voters further by reading a long debate.1) My opponent here claims, "I never said anything about our ability to fully ascertain the objective world." Yet in the previous round, he claimed, "We cannot fully determine what objective reality is." Later in this round, he asserts, "the objective reality we cannot fully ascertain will support the correct answer." I advise voters to carefully read all arguments.2) My opponent has provided no proof that more babies would die now than in the 70's. Therefore his burden is unfulfilled. 3 & 4) Where is the proof that these children will die before foster care gets to them? What will they die from? I have proven that adoption is an alternative to abortion that will save lives. My opponent has admitted through all of his arguments that saving lives is a good idea. He has provided no proof that adoption is wrong other than by esssentially saying "foster care is bad" over and over. Therefore my point stands unrebutted. I'm going to quote the next part:"If they could just refocus on the root causes of this problem, the objective reality we cannot fully ascertain will support the correct answer"What does this actually mean? It means everything my opponent is saying is subjective. He says he is sure objective reality will support his arguments, but he also admits he cannot figure out what objective reality is. Therefore he cannot be sure his arguments are supported by objective reality. When something is "not relative" it cannot be changed by anything. This makes something unable to be a variable, as variables change. However, while I still do not think "absolute variables" is an apt term to use, I understand the idea, and will leave it be. 5) My opponent uses an appeal to emotion fallacy here. I could just as easily say:My opponent's argument is this, "The couple made a mistake by having a baby. Therefore, we should slaughter the baby because they don't feel like having it, emotionally destroying the mother to do so." But this is an appeal to emotion. It is a fallacy and proves nothing. 6) My opponent is correct about the atom, but an issue such as abortion isn't so black and white. Many contributing factors of objective reality, what my opponent calls "absolute variables" exist on a situation, from which we draw our subjective realities. My opponent only admits the factors that support abortion exist, while ignoring those that deny it. Pro-lifers view all of the factors and decide based on their values that saving lives is the most important thing, and draw their subjective reality from that. 7) I agree that Black Markets will likely open. There is no proof, however, that they will, and without an objective reality, there will always be doubt. 8) My opponent has the BoP. Since he did not "do some research" himself, his assertions are null. Government funds pay for abortion [1]. With abortion illegal, the government could further fund adoption.9 & 10) Once again, bald assertions with no proof.11) Once again, many pro-life people are working on this. My sources are above.In this second part, my opponent makes more bald assertions, while racking up appeal to emotion and ad hominem fallacies. Many pro-lifers are Christian, and do not believe in birth control. However, many promote safe sex and birth control as well.12) The issue is children dying. Abortion encourages unwanted pregnancies, as women can just put on a "Band-Aid" if they become pregnant. My opponent keeps claiming I am detached from reality baselessly. 13) I'm not sure why my opponent even argued this. He admits I'm right, that less babies would die if abortion was illegalized. I fail to see what "that was in the 70's" proves. 15) The answer to all my opponent's questions is "the government" which is to say, I suppose, mostly taxpayers. I once again fail to see how anything in that paragraph proves a "detachment from reality"17) My opponent in the next two paragraphs makes assertions about my arguments that are completely untrue, such as "You claim no real goal exists." However, I have claimed the end of losing life is the goal. Both ending unplanned pregnancies and legal abortion are important steps on the path to this goal. However, abortion gives a "quick fix" to unplanned pregnancies via murder, and therefore needs to be eradicated. This does not mean pro-lifers do not understand that unplanned pregnancies are bad, they just do not think murder is the way to solve the issue. My opponent continually keeps repeating "detachment", apparently trying to ingrain it into the voters' minds. Read the whole debate please, voters.ConclusionAlthough my opponent gives a valiant effort in this debate, he has failed in his burden. Although he has claimed many reasons for pro-lifers being wrong (unsourced, unsupported, mostly speculative reasons), he has never asserted why that makes them wrong. His logic looks like this:p1. Black Markets will probably open when abortion is illegalizedc1. Pro-lifers must be detached from realityAs you can see, my opponent's arguments are faulty as they are missing an entire premise. They are almost completely non-sequitur. He fails to prove that any of his speculated problems are worse than murder. My opponent also has not and cannot prove that ALL pro-lifers, such as those who attempt to discourage unplanned pregnancies, are incorrect. My opponent fails in his burden and therefore cannot win this debate. Source [1]http://opinionmatters.flatoday.net...