Debate Info

Right to kill babies Food and gas
Debate Score:11
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Right to kill babies (5)
 Food and gas (4)

Debate Creator

FungusOfHam(14) pic

What wins elections, right to kill babies or right to eat and afford gas?

Right to kill babies

Side Score: 6

Food and gas

Side Score: 5
2 points

What wins elections, right to kill babies or right to eat and afford gas?


I dunno.. I tried to read the Bible, but I couldn't get passed all the hypocrisy..

Psalm 137:9

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"


Side: Right to kill babies
LordSauron(90) Disputed
1 point

We've got another atheist who either had no idea what he was reading or never looked into the verse in the first place. And even if one had no idea what the context was, a quote from a person in a story is't a command from God.

Secondly, if you are attempting to claim the verse is bad without context, then you are admitting that you see killing babies as wrong unlike the leftist position.

Thirdly, even if I didn't know the context, God does distinguish between regular life and war. Abortion isn't attacking your enemy in the same way it attacked you. It's killing your own offspring.

Fourthly, if you actually had a problem with hypocrisy, you couldn't be a Democrat. Hypocrisy is the only standard or principle the left has. They'll attack you for shipping migrants after they shipped migrants. They'll go berserk over Russian collusion with zero proof after colluding with Russia via Uranium One. They'll say you're a threat to democracy and that big corporations are bad, and then they'll censor speech via the corporations. They'll say they are pro immigrant, pro body freedom, pro woman, and then attack Melania Trump. They'll say Bill Clinton's sex life is no one's business, and then attack Trump's sex life. They'll say they're pro immigrant, and then ship them off of Martha's Vineyard. They'll condemn kids in cages, then say nothing when Obama built them, and Joe still uses them. They'll say walls are racist, then build walls around their homes, Biden will begin finishing the border wall, and they'll be fine with the "racist wall". They'll say pharmaceutical companies are evil and that the vaccine is dangerous and rushed, then demand you take the pharmaceutical companies' rushed vaccine.

Clearly you don't reject ideologies or positions over hypocrisy. You accept positions based on one reason and one reason alone. Democrat is attached to them. This is why Republican YouTubers have become famous from getting leftists to accept or reject any position possible simply based on whether they are told it came from Trump or a Democrat. I'm thoroughly convinced that you'd be pro life tomorrow if your tv told you to.

Side: Food and gas
1 point

This is a major reason I gave up on the new atheist movement, about a 1/3 of the reason. To accurately historical interpret ancient hebrew and the Bible quickly becomes a major time sink.

A good Christian apologist will do well exactly what LordSauron did and said the atheist misinterpreted and thus strawman. Which may be 100% correct. There is an argument the new atheist movement is just a whole of burning of strawman and everything is a misinterpretation.

This is the other 1/3 of the equation, atheists may simply be incorrect. The final 1/3 has to do with the new atheist movement and the alt-right.

There is good argument that any moral person should have nothing to do with the new atheist movement after what the leaders, did. Getting Trump elected, promoting war in Iraq, anti-feminism, etc.

Anyways, I am done with the new atheist movement. To recap why the new atheist movement should be abandoned, the three major components, time sink, simply may be wrong, and immorality of new atheist leaders.

Supporting Evidence: Pslam 137 historical context. (
Side: Right to kill babies
0 points

Well, as Biden THE IMBECILE and his handlers are herding in millions of immigrants of the type that EAT THEIR BABIES I guess that the official line is vote Democrat and KILL BABIES with impunity.

While illegals were being questioned at the border about their custom of EATING THEIR BABIES one immigrate remarked that he liked babies, but not a whole one.

Side: Right to kill babies
excon(17403) Disputed
2 points

one immigrate remarked that he liked babies, but not a whole one.

Hello N:

I like 'em too, but not their eyeballs.. Is that weird?

Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha..


Side: Food and gas
Norwich(744) Disputed
1 point

Nor me, especially when they're staring up at you from the plate.

Gruesome or what?

Side: Right to kill babies
1 point

I don't know of any immigrants who eat their babies.

"The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term 「illegal immigrant」 or the use of 「illegal」 to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that 「illegal」 should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally" April 2, 2013

This was written over 9 years ago. Time to adapt to more respectful and less offensive language.

Supporting Evidence: Drop the i word. (
Side: Food and gas
0 points

Who needs food and gas when under this Democrat administration you can eat your off-spring, steal automobiles and keep warm by burning public building and private property.

It's great to be in America when you enjoy the status of being an illegal immigrant.

Side: Food and gas
1 point

Undocumented immigrant not illegal. Illegal immigrant is vague and dehumanizing.

Supporting Evidence: Undocumented immigrant. (
Side: Right to kill babies