Welcome to Gaia! ::

Debate practice.

So I have a question. Would one of the pro choice people that is in the E.D thread a lot teach me how to debate better. I can handle the really stupid people but I cant hold my own against people like lime lady. So I was wondering if maybe we should have training grounds for debates? I mean I know you all have different styles but I was wondering if you all taught a little bit it might help people.

Mybe some of the old timers can help.

So that is three people that want traning.

Sure, though not right now ^^;; It's late razz

I haven't been debating as often lately, and haven't done so often with some of the more prominent members of the PLG (don't see them out of their guild all that often. xp ), though I am a kindasorta regular for the abortion debate. Long and more involved debates are fun for me when I have the time and I feel up for it, though I am very out of practice.

Personal Debate Notes: (Which, certainly, many debators do not subscribe to, though other do.)

- Unless their post demonstrates utter ignorance of the topic (ie. I don't like abortion, even though I'm not even sure of what it is etc.), or is already either flaming/attacking/blatantly ignoring points etc., be civil. Just as Grip of Death said, treat the other person with the most noble intentions, and don't get too snarky unless they're really asking for it.

- Subscribe to bodily integrity more than anything else. Some people don't believe the fetus is a person. Some do. Many of the choicers here subscribe to the idea that the fetus is not a person until it has been born. I, personally, disagree with that, though I myself have not pinpointed exactly when I begin to think of the fetus as a person. Saying that rights are given at birth doesn't mean much to the lifers, since they obviously disagree and want to change that (how...I'm not sure. =/) I think we could talk about the status of fetuses vs. human beings until the sun 'splodes, and we still wouldn't be done.

If said lifer indicates that they do not believe in the woman's right to bodily integrity, then ask them about mandatory kidney/blood/marrow/all other extra organ donations.

Bottom line is that if the fetus is a human being, it has no right being in the woman's body, using her uterus, leeching from her nutrients unless she says it can be there. And if it isn't a human being, this debate wouldn't even be here.

- Connecting to the last point, many lifers have told me that even though the fetus is in the woman's uterus it a) gets special rights over a human being, and usually do not explain why, b) the woman consented to the risk of being pregnant by having sex, or c) that they were the ones to create the fetus in this state, and as such, can't kill it because it is their creation. Some have even gone so far as to say that the woman is infringing on the fetus's right by creating nit, though I haven't quite figured out that train of though yet.

If a). Not much to say. They're crazy.

b). That the woman might have consented to risk- but that in no way indicates consent to carry to term and give birth. Consent can also be withdrawn- . If you are personally going to abort if you get pregnant, indicate your acceptance of said risk by telling them you're prepared for an abortion, should you need one.

Also draw in points about consenting to having a p***s inside you does not equal consent to having a fetus inside you anymore than having your husband's p***s inside you equals consent to another person having sex with you. If they try to argue that pregnancy is natural, kindly remind them that their internet is not natural in the least.

c) Probably the best argument of the three, it's still flawed. Even if you are the reason this person is in , you cannot be punished for denying them parts of your body anyway.

Say I hit someone with a car (let's say, for the closest aligning to a lifer's view, that this accident is my fault and I was driving at 70 mph in a 35 mile zone). Said person is dying, and needs a specific type of blood to live. I am the only person on the continent with the kind of blood type he needs, and I am the cause of his dependence on me.

I say 'No, I'm not going to donate blood', for religious/selfish/something else reasons.

He dies. I will be charged with vehicular manslaughter. I will be charged for hitting that person's car, in an accident that was my fault, because I did something illegal- NOT for not donating blood.

Compare this with sex. I have sex, and as such, I get pregnant. I am the cause of the fetus's dependance on me, and I decide that I don't want to give the fetus living space and my food, so I abort.

I cannot be charged for denying it living space/nutrients. I also cannot be charged for being the cause, because I have done nothing illegal- only had sex. So I cannot be charged for anything.

Of course, some lifers may begin to attack the act of having sex without wanting children in the first place, though that is very easy to refute.

- Some may bring up the issue of a parent's responsibilities to their child. Fact is, no parent is required to donate their own body parts to their children either, even if said parents were the cause of them (ex. giving birth to a child they KNEW would have genetic diseases.)



Erm, hope this long, and rather rambly post helped...someone. Somebody did ask for points on bodily integrity. x]

It'd be interesting if we had a thread where some choicers DA'd. But I dont' think I could be one of them, I can't play Devil's Advocate well. >< I always outthink my own 'points'.

The best way to learn how to debate is to actually be in one, even if you're just lurking. I'm willing to play Devil's Advocate over PMs with anyone who wishes some help.

Some general advice:

-Read up on some logical fallacies and avoid them like little boys avoid Michael Jackson. When you see them in your opponent's argument, call it out.

-Stay civil, especially if you can tell that your opponent is losing their cool. It's much better for them to stomp off in a snit than it is for you.

-Have your arguments well thought out. If someone corners you on a part of it, shelve it for now (don't bring it up in discussion) but work on it on your own.

I was cornered once when I brought up my argument for why the father should have to pay child support even if he doesn't want the child (at least until a guardian can take his place), which states that the father should pay support because he has a child, and thus is obligated to support him/her until someone suitable can and will take his place. I was cornered on this: why are the biological parents responsible for their child(ren)? I said that I couldn't explain why. It's something I can support, I just can't explain it. The argument is shelved until I can explain why the biological parents should be responsible for their children.

-Ruthlessly attack worthwhile points that are not being defended to your satisfaction. Hound them until they A. get pissed off and leave 2. come up with something reasonable or C. concede. I rarely see concession.

-Concede when you know you are beat. But don't get bitchy. Lick your wounds, don't lash out.

-Realize that some things in this debate (mostly in the moral arena) cannot be proven. Debating, say, religion is HARD because you may say "that doesn't apply to anyone who isn't of x religion" and they can/usually will reply "we're all subject to God's laws." It becomes a battle of belief and opinion, which always leads to someone feeling bullied and/or persecuted. Personhood, in the United States, is hard to prove on a legal basis. The Constitution is extremely vague about personhood. The Fourteenth Amendment can be used for either side because of it's language.

-Learn from the rest of us, and from your mistakes.

-Choose your battles. Some people just aren't worth the time and energy that you will put into their posts. With time, you will recognize these people right off the bat.

-I, personally, argue that a woman is more important than the fetus that she is carrying.

I believe in a person's right to be selfish, a right to do what they think is best for themselves. I do not feel that selflessness is, necessarily, a virtue, especially when one is being forced to be selfless.

I also argue that a woman should not have to house and nourish foreign life when she does not want to.

I also feel that forcing a woman to remain pregnant is tantamount to rape, because the fetus is using her body without her consent.

Abortion can also be considered pre-natal euthanasia.

-I'll probably add more as I go on

I've been nursing this idea... What do you guys think of an argument testing facility? You can post arguments in progress so that potential weaknesses can be found and strengthened, stuff like that. It makes much more sense and is a better idea in my head, I swear!