GodOfOrder
Well-Known Member
Is there some position you hold on some various topic, but hate the way that it is being argued for?
Make a list of bad arguments for good points. One point at a time, and your counter reasoning. Or, you can present an argument that you think has been framed incorrectly, and should be put into another context.
Points and counter points, as well as the claims they are asserting can be as contentious as you wish. Fire away!
Debate that annoys me: Abortion
Context of said debate I don't like: Is a fetus human?
Reason I don't like it: It shouldn't matter if the fetus is human or not. The argument should only concern itself with consent. In Roe v. Wade they made it an issue of privacy and also established that at some point the fetus has enough potential for the state to give it protections if it so desires (We have gone away from their trimester test, however as precedent evolved). Since then the debate has been centered on the person-hood of the fetus (At what point does the state have just cause to protect life, and thus supersede the privacy rights of the mother?).
However we also have legal precedent in our legal system to kill humans who are considered full fledged persons. If it is justifiable to kill an undisputed "person" than the debate should only be focused on what context it is right and fitting to do so. The murky metaphysical questions need not be asked. If the fetus is not a person then who cares (remove it if need be), and if it is then who cares (remove it if need be)? The castle doctrine allows one to forcibly remove a home invader from their property, with lethal force if necessary. The Fourth Amendment declares one to be secure in their persons, places, and effects. The castle doctrine secures this right for one's home. The right to abortion should provide the same protection for one's body. The only question that needs to be asked is "is the fetus invited?"
How to argue: If you don't like the point, then provide justification for why the castle doctrine is not an analogous standard. But keep the debate consistently framed as one of consent, and in such a way that does not involve unanswerable questions. Note that the argument does not rely on the presumption that a fetus is human, but only frames the issue in a way where that question does not matter.
You need not discuss my example- make your own and comment on the ones that capture your interest. Have fun.
Make a list of bad arguments for good points. One point at a time, and your counter reasoning. Or, you can present an argument that you think has been framed incorrectly, and should be put into another context.
Points and counter points, as well as the claims they are asserting can be as contentious as you wish. Fire away!
Debate that annoys me: Abortion
Context of said debate I don't like: Is a fetus human?
Reason I don't like it: It shouldn't matter if the fetus is human or not. The argument should only concern itself with consent. In Roe v. Wade they made it an issue of privacy and also established that at some point the fetus has enough potential for the state to give it protections if it so desires (We have gone away from their trimester test, however as precedent evolved). Since then the debate has been centered on the person-hood of the fetus (At what point does the state have just cause to protect life, and thus supersede the privacy rights of the mother?).
However we also have legal precedent in our legal system to kill humans who are considered full fledged persons. If it is justifiable to kill an undisputed "person" than the debate should only be focused on what context it is right and fitting to do so. The murky metaphysical questions need not be asked. If the fetus is not a person then who cares (remove it if need be), and if it is then who cares (remove it if need be)? The castle doctrine allows one to forcibly remove a home invader from their property, with lethal force if necessary. The Fourth Amendment declares one to be secure in their persons, places, and effects. The castle doctrine secures this right for one's home. The right to abortion should provide the same protection for one's body. The only question that needs to be asked is "is the fetus invited?"
How to argue: If you don't like the point, then provide justification for why the castle doctrine is not an analogous standard. But keep the debate consistently framed as one of consent, and in such a way that does not involve unanswerable questions. Note that the argument does not rely on the presumption that a fetus is human, but only frames the issue in a way where that question does not matter.
You need not discuss my example- make your own and comment on the ones that capture your interest. Have fun.
