Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs Styx Debate Abortion – Pro-Life vs Government Overreach.
- #142214:28upheld Jay Dyer epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… because there are consequentialist ethic type dilemmas at times, it doesn't lead us to the conclusion that there aren't moral absolutes. And, of course, I am somebody who supports the the idea of moral absolutes.”
Diogenes: Asked about the Irish woman who died, he answers the hard case directly — allowing intervention to save the mother — and separates it from the principle at issue rather than letting the rare case decide the rule.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since the outset that abortion should be illegal as a matter of moral absolute but that hard cases like danger to the mother's life are genuine dilemmas handled by medical judgment without overturning the absolute; this line restates and applies that position directly to Big Mike's question about the Irish case. The question on the table was whether banning abortion creates a slippery slope preventing medically necessary intervention to save the mother; S2 directly answers that doctors retain judgment to act to save the mother's life in such situations, and then explains why this does not undermine his separate claim to a right to life from the womb — a responsive answer, not a dodge or evasion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay states a clear premise (that hard cases produce genuine consequentialist dilemmas) and draws an explicit conclusion (that this does not refute the existence of moral absolutes), directly answering Styx's Ireland-case challenge by separating the question of emergency medical judgment from the question of whether a right to life exists.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening and consistent position is that abortion should be illegal as a moral absolute while hard cases (mother's life, non-viability) are genuine dilemmas handled at the margins without overturning the absolute; this answer applies exactly that framework to the question asked, so it is not a departure but its enactment. S1 asked a concrete question about whether outlawing abortion risks barring medically necessary intervention to save the mother (the Irish case); S2 directly answers that doctors retain judgment to act to save the mother's life, while distinguishing that from the separate question of a general right to life, consistent with his opening framework that hard cases are dilemmas that don't overturn the moral absolute.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.