NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe hat the trademark of a true debateur is that he/she can switch sides in the blink of an eye, and argue with just as much effectiveness. So I thought I'd test NS'ers on this. I'm gonna give a topic and I want you all to argue the opposite side of what you normally do. Try to do your best; don't try to make the opposite side look stupid just cause you don't agree with it. Have fun. :D

First Topic: Abortion

good idea, and very true.
would love to, but wont be free to join in till this evening damnit

No takers?

Eh, I'll try, but I'm pretty bad at devils advocate when I can't see the logic of the other sides argument.



Abortion: I disagree with abortion, primarily because it's the un-necessary murder of a human life. Even if one believes that a foetus is not a living being, it is still a potential life that is being ended before it has even began. Something that would be human that now does not exist. There are many alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, or even just living with the consequences and bringing up the child. Now, obviously there are situations where this simply isn't possible, or the child is the result of a rape, etc. In these situations, again, adoption is a viable option. Another pitfall of abortion is on deciding on how far pregnancy can progress before the foetus is judged as being alive. We can't accurately say when this organism is actually alive. It could be alive from day one, or it could be alive several months into the pregnancy, we just can't tell. A few brainwaves or heartbeats really can't be called an accurate judge of life.

(That's all I can think of. it's probably really quite bad, but see excuse above.)

Not bad. Keep em coming, guys.

ah sod it...

abortion is immoral as it breaks the moral code handed to us by God. Thou shalt not kill applies as much to unborn children as it does to all. Just because the foetus is not yet a 'fully functioning/grown' human, it is still human and has the potential to bring its own experiences and individuality to this world - it is not for anyone else to decide whether this person-to-be is to be allowed this chance in life as that choice may only be made by God. At precisely what point does the foetus stop being just 'living tissue' (as those spiteful liberals might say) and become a human being? This distinction cannot be made, and as such abortion is always the murder of an innocent and helpless life. Abortionists should be paraded around in their undies and shot before the terrible wrath of almighty God!


hows that (got a bit carried away at the end there ;) )

ah sod it...

abortion is immoral as it breaks the moral code handed to us by God. Thou shalt not kill applies as much to unborn children as it does to all. Just because the foetus is not yet a 'fully functioning/grown' human, it is still human and has the potential to bring its own experiences and individuality to this world - it is not for anyone else to decide whether this person-to-be is to be allowed this chance in life as that choice may only be made by God. At precisely what point does the foetus stop being just 'living tissue' (as those spiteful liberals might say) and become a human being? This distinction cannot be made, and as such abortion is always the murder of an innocent and helpless life. Abortionists should be paraded around in their undies and shot before the terrible wrath of almighty God!


hows that (got a bit carried away at the end there ;) )


Sweeeet.

Abortion should not be performed after the baby can live on its own inside the womb. If the "fetus", however, cannot yet sustain independent life AND IS a threat to the woman in labor, then abortion, I believe, should be allowed. YES! Even if a "book" says not to. I dislike the imposing of other thoughts and laws onto another system (pro-choice vs. pro-life) in the name of God. But then again, so do pro-choicers to pro-life. It's all a war. I think it just needs time. IT MUST NOT BE DECIDED NOW. Such issues NEED TIME. And that's what the government is doing. They're not going to create new laws to abolish either view completely. They will skim through it to leave it to the next administration to deal with. And you all think it'll be resolved "today", like gay marriages. Come on.
Get your head out of the ground.

Btw, notice how I got my point across without calling conservatives names. I believe I rock.

Abortion? Dammit, this sounds hard...

It is inconceivable to me that people can claim their right to abortion with no feeling of guilt. Would you kill an innocent child? No? Then why is it different if it’s still unborn? The simple fact is that it is no matter what stage of devolpment the child is at, killing children is wrong, and cannot be justified under any circumstances. An unborn child is still a child, ra ra ra go pro-life people...

Erm... i think i hit the main point too early, i can't think of anything else to say. :D

Incidently i read somewhere that a pro-life group posed as an aborition advice group. Underhand tactics or what?

then we hit the far sides of this topic like... no one remembers their childhood that well if not any... how do we know when the "unborn" child is alive because it is connected to (it would be mother) so really it would just be one person until it is ready and begins its life

The fetus couldn't survive without the mother, it's true. It doesn't breathe or eat for itself, it simply gets all it's nutrients from the mother. It feeds off her like a parasite. It's her right to remove it!

The fetus is essentailly a guest inside the womb, and as owner of the womb any mother should have the option of evicted said guest. Free abortions for all!


Given that i'm fairly middle-of-the-road on this issue i though i'd try arguing both extremes.

Murder is illegal. Therefor if it can be shown abortion is murder, abortion should be illegal. Simple, basic logic. Everyone agreed ? Good.
"But an embryo is not a human !" I hear you atheists call out now. Well.. what is a human ? A human is Gods image on earth. It has a soul - which is why we are justified when killing animals. Animals do not have souls. Plants do not have souls. Embryos do. Which is why they are human - even before birth. And therefor killing them is murder.

"I do not believe in souls !". Aaaah- still the atheist I see. Rest assured - even though you don't, I do, and i will pray to conserve yours. But even without the soul the embryo is special: it will grow up to be a full human. Can we deny it that ? Do we have a right to end its existence before it has committed any crime ? Yes, it may be a new Hitler. But it may also be the person that will cure AIDS and cancer. Who are we to decide who is to live and who cannot without knowing what the future will bring ?

OOC: damn - this is hard. I'm too well aware of the holes in my reasoning :(

So far I've seen no one repeat my sequence of accepting both sides. All I hear are either pure conservatives just plainly calling out Abortion murder because they have nothing else to say, and liberals saying the fetus should just be removed.

I think no one reads the previous posts. They just hurry to click 'reply'.

"But an embryo is not a human !" I hear you atheists call out now. Well.. what is a human ? A human is Gods image on earth. It has a soul - which is why we are justified when killing animals. Animals do not have souls.

It is also why we are justified in wars of conquest. Those who do not worship the one true god are destined for hell. Better to kill them all now before they can spawn a new generation of children doomed to go to hell. It's an act of mercy to kill non Christians and steal their children to have them raised in Christians' homes.

The whiney liberal left will tell you that these are bad things we have done to the Native Americans and the African Bushmen, but think what these childrens lives would have been like had we not done that? Defecating on the ground and burying it with dirt! Scrounging the bare Earth for whatever morself o food might be found in it. Daily deprevation and despair.

Because of our kidnapping native americans have grown up to know the glory of Christ. Because of slavery the black man gets to grow up in the Land of Opportunity. Christian wars of conquest are the most selfless and virtuous endeavours that a Christian man can undertake so that people all over the world may be remade in God's images. Until then they have no souls because any soul God saw fit to gift them they will have already sold to Satan without even knowing it.

(If anyone thinks I am arguing badly to make the religous right sound stupid, Pat Robertson has argued EXACTLY these things).

So far I've seem no one repeat my sequence of accepting both sides. All I hear are either pure conservatives just plainly calling out Abortion murder because they have nothing else to say, and liberals saying the fetus should just be removed.

I think no one reads the previous posts. They just hurry to click 'reply'.

I think the problem is that people don't get this outspoken over issues over which they can see both sides. I usually don't pick a side on any issue unless I see one side as being patently stupid, pointless, and harmful. ie. Wanting to ban abortion, voting for Bush, or opposing legalization of marijuana.

It amazes me how these Christians hold to their dear heart that animals have no souls, and yet they have never found that for themselves. They just read that from a book. I believe in spirit, and I believe animals have something. Maybe not a "soul", but something. They aren't machines. They aren't "empty", imo.

I think no one reads the previous posts. They just hurry to click 'reply'.

OOC: I read them. I need practice however before I dare to seriously debate with you or anyone else in this topic ;)

IC: Your position is one of two sides my dear. Such indecision is a logical result from not accepting the certainty and comfort the Lord brings. Please.. contact me if you ever need to talk. There is only one side to every issue. The Right Side. The Lords side. Once you realise that your doubts will disappear.

OOC: hmm.. I should sound less like a preacher methinks.. it's too stereotypical.

OOC: I read them. I need practice however before I dare to seriously debate with you or anyone else in this topic ;)

IC: Your position is one of two sides my dear. Such indecision is a logical result from not accepting the certainty and comfort the Lord brings. Please.. contact me if you ever need to talk. There is only one side to every issue. The Right Side. The Lords side. Once you realise that your doubts will disappear.

OOC: hmm.. I should sound less like a preacher methinks.. it's too stereotypical.

Extremely preacherous.
I do not follow religious extremism. It is too dangerous.

Notice how you say the lord's side is the right side. That is scary. Sounds like you'd go on a Crusade in America.

Pros: Abortion is a technique that has been practiced for centuries, and has, as of yet, not been discontinued, nor do I believe it will ever be. Abortion has the ability to rid the female human body of unwanted pregnancies (i.e. pregnancies not desired, such as in extreme cases of sexual abuse). Rape and incest are crimes of violence, and the offspring of such are likely to display signs of mental handicaps and other health problems. Rather than let these children be raised by a woman who is not ready to be pregnant, abortion is a viable alternative.

Cons: Abortion is also a very misused practice by young teenagers practicing unsafe sex, and who are most definitely not ready to be engaging in sexual intercourse, nor are they ready to become parents to a child. In these cases, perhaps a better alternative then the all-too common "Oops! I did it again!" would be adoption. Instead of arguing on the grounds that certainly some abortions are murder, I shall instead focus on the types of abortion that most definitely are murder. Abortions in the third trimester are indeed illegal. Because the child is almost fully developed and might be able to survive in ICU, these children deserve to live. Children are our future, and should be precious to us.

I believe hat the trademark of a true debateur is that he/she can switch sides in the blink of an eye, and argue with just as much effectiveness. So I thought I'd test NS'ers on this. I'm gonna give a topic and I want you all to argue the opposite side of what you normally do. Try to do your best; don't try to make the opposite side look stupid just cause you don't agree with it. Have fun. :D

First Topic: Abortion

Okay, here goes, (please note, these views are things I actually see in favor of abortion, I just don't believe they rise to a sufficient level to justify it)

First, abortion can spare both potential parents and children of serious negative social consequences. Potential unwed mothers can save themselves serious life consequences by having an abortion including but not limited, loss of social standing, increased financial burden, difficulty finding a life partner willing to be an instant parent, it makes education more difficult, force a learning of parenting skills that a young individual may not have sufficient maturity to implement, depression, dis-fellowship/excommunication, and a host of other social and economic consequences. Potentially unwanted children can avoid, having to live in a difficult world, increased likelihood of parental abuse, growing up in poverty, growing up with social stigma, growing up with little sense of personal value and a host of other social and economic consequences.

Second, abortion, at least in some cases, may be necessary to protect the life of the mother, yes, these cases are rare, but they do exist.

Third, abortion can be an effective means of population control in a world of limited resources.

Fourth, it is likely that "illegal abortions" would occur even if the practice was outlawed. It is likely that a good percentage of them would be extremely dangerous to the mother and could cause severe medical complications, which could well be an additional burden on tax payors and insurance providers.

Fifth, asking a woman to carry a child to term that she wants no part of is a violation of her rights (of course my counter argument to that is that at least she isn't having her most basic right taken, her life and in a abortion the child's most basic right to life supercedes that of a lesser violation of the mothers rights.)

I know that in addition to the points I have mentioned, the argument about what constitutes a "human life" often come in and while I can argue the other side of that, it is merely a game of semantics for the most part so I'm not going to bother.

How's that? Do I do that side of the argument justice? (as least minus my parenthetical comments.)

Abortion is a good thing. More people get aborted, the better the world is for God's Chosen.

However! abortion should still be illegal.

[There. The opposite of my true opinion that abortion sucks but should be legal.]

[Instead of really arguing though... heh heh... I said 'abortion sucks'... heh heh]

All women should have the right to an abortion, regardless of the circumstances. The medical profession is built primarily on confidentiality, and this should extend absolutely to abortion - it is only a small step from prescriptive contraception, after all. There should be no distinction between a woman who has fallen pregnant many times and uses abortion as a method of birth control and one who has been raped - the hypocratic oath is clear that there should be no discrimination in the medical profession at all. Life does not begin until a human being has an existance independant of it's mother - this is the case in law (AG Ref), and so any woman should have the right to abort at any time, up until the date that the baby is born and takes a breath outside of the womb - until then, it is not a human being, and so should not be given the status of one (this is clear common sense - medicine and law should be consistant with one another, as they are so absolutely linked). The subject requires thinking rationally and detatchedly, without the foolish sentimentalism that has come to surround it. Only when one approaches the subject with such rationality and clarity can the clear and logical conclusion be reached - abortion is an acceptible and wholly integrated part of the modern society, and it should be the right of every female to make the choice to undergo one without the fear of backward social stigma.

I want to be a barrister, so I think this thread is a great idea!

Abortion is a load of shit. Any child should have the right to life whether or not their parent wants them to exist or not. That's like punishing the unborn child for having parents who got raped/suck at using protection/etc. It's murder, and taking away a chance that we might have to get a new Einstein or Ruth or whatnot.

(note: I'm trying to do this without playing religion)

Well, I think abortion in certain cases is fine. Also, only if the zygote or whatever form or stage it is in, cannot sustain its own life and is in danger of hurting the child-bearer. I think it could be used as good. Let's say that a girl is raped and becomes pregnant, then abortion could be used to get rid of the baby that she doesn't want. Of course, their should be evidence of rape such as hospital visits of their name on record or bruising and/or trauma to the sexual organs such as broomsticks. But their should be some way to tell. Well, that is my opinion on it. Take it the way you want, call me ignorant or whatever else you want. Doesn't matter. I won't listen to your insults. Just your opinions or thoughts.

our society should be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable among us

the killing of the most utterly innocent of human life....the unborn... shows just how far we have sunk into the quagmire of immorality.

our society should be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable among us

the killing of the most utterly innocent of human life....the unborn... shows just how far we have sunk into the quagmire of immorality.

That is a beautifully suscinct characterization of this subject. :) To bad it is the opposite of what you believe, right :confused: either way, well said.

Now you know what they tell jurors? They tell 'em that they're supposed to vote guilty only if completely sure of guilt. If they have reason to doubt guilt, they are to vote innocent. Now, some folks say that babies only come alive when they're out of their mother. Other folks say they alive all the time. Now that allows for doubt. Since we have doubt and a precedent to what you do if you have that doubt, we need to vote innocent, or anti-abortion.

Good replies across the board. Alrighty then, redistribution of wealth, 3...2...1...Go!

Redistribution of wealth is the obvious consequence of decreasing marginal utility. Because each house (or car or anything else, including currency) is less valuable than the previous one to the owner, value increases if we redistribute goods to those who have fewer. Furthermore, perfect redistribution (everyone has just as much) would be ideal because no one would have less than anyone else, so that value could not increase further by redistributing from those who have more to those who have less. Although people assign different values to different products (a small family doesn't value a large home as much as a large family, even if they both have the same number of homes currently), it is safe to assume that everyone values currency according to the same decreasing function. This is because value is always comparitive, so that the thing that one person values greatest has just as much value to him or her as the thing that another person values most has to this second person. Thus, perfect redistribution of currency is ideal because it allows people to choose what they value, while considering both decreasing marginal utility and innate differences in value. The actual best situation might not be the same as this "extreme" ideal because it might discourage innovation and extra hard work. However, it would be even more extreme to claim that the best situation is completely away from this ideal. Therefore, some level of redistribution (probably a great amount) would benefit society.

i remember having a big argument against gun control with someone on another forum..went on for a few pages, then at the end i just said "cant be bothered anymore, i agree with you i just wanted someone to argue with"...they werent best pleased. kept me entertained though

I would take you up on your offer, however being Pro-choice I fear my argument against abortion is too good and would be counter-productive to what I believe.

I would take you up on your offer, however being Pro-choice I fear my argument against abortion is too good and would be counter-productive to what I believe.

Huh? Do you mean that you won't do it because you might convince yourself to change your mind? Perhaps I'm reading that incorrectly.

Huh? Do you mean that you won't do it because you might convince yourself to change your mind? Perhaps I'm reading that incorrectly.

No, it wouldn't change my mind, but it might others. I could personally never have an abortion. I have two beautiful children, how could I. But my argument is one that might change other people's mind and I don't wish to do that. Because I do believe it's a woman's choice, even if I may think it's not always a good choice.

time for a change of devils advocate topic?

i propose... gun control.


i'll start...


property is one of the few aspects of humanity that truly sets us apart from animals - the ability to produce what we require, and the ability of society to recognise an individual's accomplishments by safeguarding their work with property laws. thus property must be safeguarded. is the state going to do this for us? the state may try, but it is not only the state that can protect property - individuals have the inalieanable right to protect what is theirs, be it their life, their family, their property or even those very rights. as Hobbes argued, the only real right there is is the right to survival. i am able to protect my family, my safety and my property when i have a gun. in modern society, i need a gun for this protection.
plus i like shooting stuff :)

time for a change of devils advocate topic?

i propose... gun control.

Good replies across the board. Alrighty then, redistribution of wealth, 3...2...1...Go!

I appreciate you may have missed that post, 'twas only a short ickle post, but be a dear and don't hijack people's threads. :)

I know the topic has changed, but I need to give this one a shot. Every woman should have the right for an abortion. It's her body, she should have say over what can and cannot be done with it. Saying that every potential baby should have the right to live is fine, but every single egg and every single sperm is a 'potential baby' and the body naturally aborts those. If we define 'potential baby' as an already fertilized embryo/fetus, the body naturally aborts those too. There's nothing wrong with a woman deciding to abort her child. Sure there are other options like giving the child up for adoption, but those are not always the best. What I'm saying, is if a woman wants an abortion, she has the right. It is her responsibility to deal with the physical, psychological, and spiritual ramifications of that, but that goes without saying.

I appreciate you may have missed that post, 'twas only a short ickle post, but be a dear and don't hijack people's threads. :)
ah shit, sorry. must have skipped past that one :(

well, save up gun control for later :)



edit: while it was a thread hijack, it was intended to be a constructive one :D

This country was based on the rights and responsibilities of the individual, with the individual's own experience being the most important thing a government can protect. The prohibition of guns would fly directly in the face of this sentiment, as it would be the direct interference into the individual experience of its citizens.

This country was based on the rights and responsibilities of the individual, with the individual's own experience being the most important thing a government can protect. The prohibition of guns would fly directly in the face of this sentiment, as it would be the direct interference into the individual experience of its citizens.

While I will admit that some guns can be valuable tools, many guns, such as handguns and assault rifles were designed solely to end human life. Now would not, according to your argument, the government have the responsibility to protect the people from anything that is designed to infringe on the human experience?

While I will admit that some guns can be valuable tools, many guns, such as handguns and assault rifles were designed solely to end human life. Now would not, according to your argument, the government have the responsibility to protect the people from anything that is designed to infringe on the human experience?

Purpose of design is not a valid indicator of use. In the situation where guns would be used to infringe on individual rights, it is not the gun that is at fault, it is the person. It would be immoral to cut the gun rights of everyone for the crimes of a few.

Purpose of design is not a valid indicator of use. In the situation where guns would be used to infringe on individual rights, it is not the gun that is at fault, it is the person. It would be immoral to cut the gun rights of everyone for the crimes of a few.

You are just a typical red state, gun-crazy dumbass. Go thump your bible.

You are just a typical, red state, gun-crazy dumbass.

Yeah, well you are a typical blue state, communist, liberal queer. Go murder a baby.

0_0
Gratz on the five star simulated schizophrenia.

Yeah, well you are a typical blue state, communist, liberal queer. Go murder a baby.

Rofl. Anyway, y'al seem to be pretty good at this. Try one more, the existence of God.

ooh thats a hard one. i really don't understand the arguements/logic of believers - thats why i try to stay out of religious debates :headbang:

Rofl. Anyway, y'al seem to be pretty good at this. Try one more, the existence of God.

You cannot help but see God in the world around you in all that you see. The trees, animals, people. It is without a doubt that he exists because if he didn't then we would not be able to dream of the wonderful things we have today...


Damn this is hard...

I'm gagging here, oh wait, choking on, my own words, aghhhhhh!!!

I will use a teleological argument.
God must exist because the universe is so orderly. While I don't deny evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang, I will appeal to Euler's argument "E^i*pi = -1. Therefore, God exists." Although he was half-joking when he stated this, Euler's argument shows the orderliness of mathematics and logic. Unlike physical order, this type of order can only have an intelligent cause. While the most immediate cause of Euler's equation was the man himself, his knowledge must have had a cause. Although one could state that the source of his knowledge was his teachers, these teachers must have recieved their knowledge from somewhere. This pattern can go back for an arbitrarily long time, but it must have a beginning. Because the only source of knowledge is sentience, the first cause of the knowledge "E^i*pi = -1" (not Euler, who was the immediate cause) must have been sentient. Therefore, knowledge in the universe must have a sentient source, proving deism if not theism.
Although one could argue that physical properties of the brain or the real-world patterns that humans notice might cause knowledge (and these could have a non-sentient source), this does not explain the source of sentience itself. People can recognize their own existences. This recognition can only come from other sentient beings. This is proved empirically by the fact that the most sentient beings we know are social. Furthermore, the super-sentience of human beings has been shown to be impossible to reproduce in a "Turing Machine." Because human beings can both recognize their own existence and imagine themselves as existing as something else, they can correctly understand logic problems such as "I can never know that this statement is true." Godel showed that a theoretical Turing Machine would pause forever at this problem. Therefore, the super-sentience of human beings must have a non-physical, but sentient first cause. A sentient first cause is an applicable definition of God. This type of god (if not other more detailed gods, like the Christian one) must exist, as shown by my argument.

Ahhh...the atheists. They tend to pose a problem. As soon as an egg is fertalized a child is concieved. Abortion is the practice of killing helpless babies before they can grow into childhood. It's just wrong man...

Devil's Advocate... :eek:
It's a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. It's her baby and it's part of her body. If she chooses to have an abortion that is her right to choose.

Alright, now, lets have some Christians/Other monotheists argue that God doesn't exist.

Alright, now, lets have some Christians/Other monotheists argue that God doesn't exist.

Amazing, no takers...

Do you think that Christian's don't use this thread as often because they don't know what the term "Devil's Advocate" means? Perhaps they think we are a bunch of satanists, and so not very many of them have even looked at this thread.

For those who don't know, the term "Devil's Advocate" comes from a practice in the Roman Catholic church. The Vatican has always been extremely careful about declaring new Saints. Whenever a person has been nominated for sainthood, the Church waits five years before even declaring him or her a "blessed." The wait for Sainthood is fifty years. After the Church gains the historical perspective of the person's life, it works on determining whether this life is worthy of being emulated. To answer this question, the vatican sends a particularly trained priest to see whether the person has done anything that might merit reconsideration of granting the title "saint." If so, the priest is to argue the case that the person should not become a saint. These priests are known as "devil's advocates" because they are arguing what might be considered satan's argument, that a particular person did not necessarily go to heaven. Because this is a position that no devil's advocate wanted to take, the term is now used for a person who argues a position opposite from his own.