| User | Jeniffer | | Topic | Debate game | | Message | Hey, I have an interesting idea for a ’debate game’. You have to choose one of the hotly discussed subjects that are debated elsewhere here, and anything else you want, and uh....debate it. But the one rule is, you cannot take the side that you agree with. You must defend the opposite of your true view. Do not say what you really think, but the opposite, and do a good job. I’m not saying it’ll be easy at first, but it will definitely stretch some minds, and maybe even make you better at defending what you do think, because you’ll have to step into the opposing parties shoes. I hope this idea won’t fizzle out, and I hope it turns out to be fun.
To start it off.....Pro choice! Whoo hooo! The fetus is just a blob of tissue! The woman’s happiness is worth so much more than just a little lump of human potential that she brought into existence herself, and she has the choice! |
|| Replies ||
| User | Blue Monk | 2006-08-27 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Something else that should be on the list of illegal substances! Chocolate, especially the dark kind is addictive! We see the "reports" of medical and heath benefits (usually funded by chocolate manufacturers) which at second glance only serve to place such a substance into what could more properly be called medicine.
It has obvious mood altering qualities, particularly in women and is therefore probably not much different from pot in that respect. Had any brownies lately? Chances are you got high even without the pot ingredient. |
| User | abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-08-27 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Dark Chocolate is supposed to be good for the heart |
| User | Blue Monk | 2006-08-26 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | I did not mention anything about God. It was about the practicality of man enforcing man made laws in the face of their being unpopular.
Most debate topics are by nature controversial. How about the health advantages/disadvantages of chocolate? I’m addicted but could possibly argue against it.
|
| User | Jeniffer | 2006-08-26 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Um.....dunno. there must be something....I’m getting kind of sick of debating God and stuff, but...maybe someone else will try what I suggested... |
| User | Chell | 2006-08-25 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | I’m sure we can move on, what shall we discuss now? |
| User | Jeniffer | 2006-08-25 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | You would know, wouldn’t you, abuzzabuzz? Point taken, Blue Monk, but didn’t I clearly say that I had no solution to that problem? There is no way we can prevent women from having abortions, law or no law. That doesn’t make it right. Now could we please drop that subject and move on? |
| User | abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-08-25 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Yes, it’s very true that women can’t travel in "Middleeastern countries" |
| User | Blue Monk | 2006-08-24 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | We must support new laws on a federal level prohibiting abortion which would be fully as effective as those already in place controlling illegal substances and illegal immigration, etc. We will, of course, have to institute a new (very large) special federal enforcement organization like the FBI, DEA and INS in support of such action.
There will be an on-line contest to determine the name for this new organization, something like BAP (Back Alley Patrol) perhaps. It will also be necessary to pass supportive legislation to outlaw folding tables, coat hangers, and other such obvious paraphernalia. There will also be a bounty reward program for turning in anyone even thinking about getting or giving an abortion, both of which will become capital crimes over night when the law passes.
This must be done on a federal level or women will simply drive across the state lines like they did when it was illegal in their own state. We’re still looking at ways to enforce the new law in other countries to snare evil women who may be wealthy enough to travel so far. One solution being studied is to restrict the travel of women altogether, much as is done in some middle eastern countries.
Pray about this with your legislators. |
| User | Jeniffer | 2006-08-24 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Oh, c’mon. What a cheap shot. And that WAS absolutely sarcastic. You are wasting my time. |
| User | NoMartyr | 2006-08-23 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | All drugs are bad because they are unnatural. God didn’t make drugs so God doesn’t want us to use them. Drugs have done no good for the world at all.
And what’s the deal with gay people? They’re not happy and they’re not people.
Don’t even get me started on black people! |
| User | Jeniffer | 2006-08-23 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Look, I KNOW that was absolutely wrong in the way that I said it. I was being deliberately sarcastic because I am not good at saying something I don’t mean; I didn’t mean that, so I did a crappy job. I was giving a feeble example of saying the opposite of what I think. Let it be also an example of how difficult it will be to do this seriously. I actually intended for this to be a more serious, respectful debate; I didn’t know what the heck to debate here, so I was hoping somebody would have an idea.
I don’t, or didn’t, feel like debating abortion from one side or another, but since you brought all that up, I have no choice except to break the rules and say what I DO think.
First off, I will never know what many girls go through because I will never have an unwanted pregnancy. I will not have a baby until I get married. I’m not being prudish, I’m being prudent, ok? And I am not so stubborn in my view points that I am blind to empathy. I UNDERSTAND that a girl will make that decision for reasons that seem perfectly justifiable to her. She is not mature enough, not ready for the huge responsibility thrust upon her, the father will not be there to help, she is experiencing physical pain and discomfort, is emotionally soupy because of raging hormones, her life will be wrecked...the list goes on. And all she must do to make it all go away is make a visit to the abortion clinic. I understand that. I also know that even if, under whatever circumstances, I should suffer such an ordeal, the pain, the fear, the abandonment of the father, the loss of the rest of my life and education,
I STILL could not do it. What could be more intimate than to have a living human being growing inside you? It would be killing a part of myself, and I could not do it. Regardless of the circumstances of conception, the baby is still innocent, still beautiful. How could you not be horrified by those photos of aborted babies? How could it not torture you to witness that first hand? It doesn’t matter how bleak the other choice is, how justified the abortion seems, a life is still a life, and abortion is still a murder. I’m not saying the girl who does it is evil, but abortion itself is AN evil. I have no answer to this problem. There will always be women and girls who want to have an abortion. I’m sorry, but I cannot argue for the other side. Abortion is one of those things that must be argued over from the heart, and you can’t argue the other side from the heart, i’m afraid. And I am a bit confused about where you DO stand on this, Chell.
I suggest that we don’t try to debate on things that are personal, like abortion. How about something more in theory, that is easier to distance yourself from? Like, for example at least, God and atheists? If you are an atheist, stop and think for a minute, then argue the case for God’s existence. If you are a Christian or just a person who believes in God, then stop and think for a minute and then argue why and how God does not exist. Use facts, use logic, but make sense, so that if someone saw the debate they couldn’t tell you are from the opposite side without knowing beforehand. If nothing else, you might bet a good laugh from this one, and it may not be a wasted post after all. And....it may be. Oh well, I tried. |
| User | Chell | 2006-08-21 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | So, we’re going to argue the same debates but the opposite sides?
And we’re doing this in hopes of understanding the other side’s point?
Isn’t that what normal debate is about?
So this is where I get to call abortionists murderers and tell then that they’re going to hell?
I can bring out the Ten Commandments and ignore, as ignorant, others religious beliefs. I can bring up scentific data which shows a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises as earliy as nine weeks, and that by the end of the second trimester it can hear. That fetus’ dream, taste, can differential voices of mom and a stranger and respond to familiar stories.
I can argue the case of millions of infertile couples just begging for the right baby to adopt.
But I think everyone’s heard these arguments.
In order for people to argue the other side and not sound sarcastic they should make sure to use the right catch phrases. Those arguing For abortion should avoid statements like ’little lump of human potential’ and "Brought into existance herself"
In fact, the last three lines of your opening statement are worded wrong if you’re going to argue pro-choice effectively. You have to decide which kind of pro-choice you are to make sure you are using the right lingo. You can be the kind wanting it legal so you have the option of aborting some mistake in the future, or you are the kind of person that wouldn’t have one, but uphold the right for people to choose for a variety of reasons- from thinking the government should NOT have any say over how women procreate, to seeing it as a way to start working on the issue of overpopulation.
Pro-abortionists don’t use phrases about life, love, and caring when discussing an unwanted pregnancy. They call that "little lump of human potential" an "It". And It’s a cancer- eating up a girls childhood, taking her education, her college funds, her ability to be a teenager. All because she decided to make love.
Or someone decided to fuck her against her will. Or because (insert adult male family fgure here) couldn’t keep it in his pants. Or because she’s so messed up on drugs that she’s whoring to get money for her next fix. Or becasue she already can’t figure out how to feed the kids she has and God has blessed her with another baby.
In order to argue an opposing view, you have to understand why that view exists. You’d have to delve into the mind of the person making the decision; understand why she could ever conceive of the notion that murdering an innocent baby could be justified.
A better game might be to spend a year living the life you’d have if you became preganant and couldn’t abort it.
For me that would mean, no tv, no fast food, fewer second-hand store clothing for all of us, no movies, no birthdays or Christmases, pay-check to pay-check eeking by, or telling my boys that I had to give thier sisters or brothers away so I could give them them the things they want.
For Jeniffer it would mean going to school with morning sickness until the baby was born and then either giving it to someone worthy of having a baby, or trying to keep it and having no social life, dropping out of school in 9th grade to get a job to pay for daycare, Applying for welfare, living with parents. Watching as best friends drift away as they go to parties, and homecomings, and proms. Having to deal with the father being forever connected to you, no matter how much you despise him.(unless you get lucky and he bails)
Not to mention the effects of pregnancy- weight gain, emotional roller coasters, leaking nipples, peeing a little when baby rolls over, heartburn, piched sciatic nerve, sweating, increased clumsiness, nausea...
It’ll be enjoyable to see if people can argue the other side without coming across as sarcastic. I obviously can’t.
Have fun! |
| User | abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-08-21 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | I second the wasted post. |
| User | insphered soul | 2006-08-20 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Sorry if this is a wasted post Jeniffer, but I must say that this is a brilliant idea |
| | |
