Arguing the Other Side

... Shit. I wanted to try this but the only views that I oppose are either beyond obviously false (like creationism) or so radical no one even thinks of opposing (like that there is no real scientific and little logical basis for all major political systems around the globe.)

Hoping to try to focus on logical arguments, rather ones that follow statistics and whatnot. Trying to focus on the most persuasive arguments I've encountered.

If there is no God, then both nonbelievers and believers end up in the same place. But if there is a God, then believers gain the upper hand because they believed in God, even if there was a chance he didn't exist. Thus, it is better to believe in God. Secondly, God gives life and the universe meaning, because it is his creation, and thus, holding these beliefs gives your own life meaning. Living a life without meaning would be rather pointless. Finally, we don't know if there is a God, so there's no point in arguing against there being a God, because we don't know, so we are free to determine and interpret how the universe came to be.

Video games ultimately reinforce violent attitudes in today's youth. While people don't necessarily learn how to use a weapon from video games or directly start killing people because of video games, their pre-conceived attitudes, placed upon them by the media they consume and by the people around them, are reinforced by the desensitization to violence in video games. People are made violent by video games.

The government should be able to have complete access to all the data I have because 1) I don't have anything to be ashamed about, and 2) I want to be safe.

We should have the right to have a firearm under all circumstances because we live in a society that still has high crime. Those who ultimately need a firearm are those who are put off by restrictions on gun use, and thus, we should remove any restrictions so that those who follow the law are safe. Completely getting rid of guns at this point is impossible because most non law-abiding gun owners get them illegally.

Ice cream is nasty because it comes from the insides of cows.

Spending a good portion of time on the Internet is a waste of time because that's not the real world. The real world is outside, in the MEATSPACE!

Go to sleep on time so that you feel better in the morning.

Video games/novels/movies/tv shows are boring because they aren't real. Reality television is real!

The author didn't intend it, so it doesn't matter.

School doesn't properly prepare me for the outside world because it didn't teach me how to do my taxes. And I don't use math in my everyday life!

Edit: It went in ridiculous directions by the end.

Okay my argument is that morality does not exist without religion.

Religion is what has taught society what morality is, I’m not arguing that religion is morally right or that the morality of major or minor religions are the only correct moralities to which we can ascribe but that there is an inalienable link between religion and morality. Morality is the code by which we live our lives, how we decide what is right and wrong.

All religions have expectations on those who follow their particular beliefs, usually in the hope of advancement to an afterlife or in subsequent lives. These codes of conduct are the first morals many people will ever experience. For those raised in non-secular environments these morals are inherently related to how they see right and wrong. I was raised in a Roman Catholic household, and by a devout child-minder. I might not believe in a god now but this environment is where I decided that killing another human being for personal gain is abhorrent. Would I have come to the same conclusion without the influence of religion? I like to believe so but I have no way of knowing. This influence at an early age is inalienable from anyone who was raised in a religious environment; it’s why people who don’t belong to a gender-binary, matching sex and gender identity, and or heterosexuality but were raised believing that being anything but a person who’s attracted to exclusively the opposite sex and that your sex defines your gender often go through severe emotional responses when they realise that they aren’t what they’ve been raised believing is normal (and in some cases ‘right’).

Similarly we often only encounter moral decisions when faced with an argument in favour of something we don’t actually believe is right or vice versa. I don’t know how I would feel about homosexuality or abortion if I hadn’t had to face a religious system which believes them to be wrong. I think that religion is the main force by which people come to moral decisions as it is religion which forces us to ask hard questions, especially ones that don’t necessarily apply to us personally. There will always be those people prone to contemplation; who see more in life than the rest of us, but even the deepest of thinkers, who pull back the blinds for the world to make observations, need a spark to light their thoughts. Religion is that spark, that little flash of energy which highlights an idea and causes questions to be asked. Perhaps in a different, parallel world there would be other points of ignition on moral issues but in the world we live in I can think of none greater than religion.

I haven’t addressed people raised in secular environments yet; not that I can easily imagine such places (being from a Catholic state really does limit your understanding of a secular world). There have been places in the past where religion was completely removed from society but morality was not, though some might argue on the effectiveness of these moralities but, to my rather limited knowledge (I’m a thinker more than a researcher, I’m not ashamed of that fact), these societies usually replace religion with a sort of faith in the state. While this is not a traditional religion, lacking a deity or deities, there is still a sense of worship which is much less notable in religious societies. In these secular societies I would argue that religion and its effect on morality are replaced by the role of ‘new religion’ in the state. As secular behaviours are enforced far more than they are experienced and so are the beliefs of the secular society.

Okay, I’m at the point where I could keep going but I’d be at this for hours as opposed to the first fifteen minutes which always come out easy and so I submit this as my contribution even though I haven’t even proof read it properly…

Topic: That claiming status as a ‘true fan’ (while denouncing those who are not) is elitist and pretentious.

FORMAT = A statement stemming from my personal belief.
Argument against the statement.

[Supposing every person kept their fandom-ness to themselves, this would have no real impact on peers or communities and there would be little-to-no discord surrounding it. Therefore, these arguments specifically concern the impact enforcing degrees of fandom on other people].

---

At one point, every ‘true fan’ was a novice. On what authority can a ‘true fan’ denounce the person they once were?
[I’m having difficulty arguing reasonably against this. Any thoughts?]

What measure is the ‘true fan’ based on? How can one discern the line between novice and ‘true fan’?
The basis is a general lack of understanding and/or lack of knowledge. In order to be invested in the subject, one must know the subject and understand its workings. The higher the complexity of understanding, the more invested the person is, therefore they have a more dedicated relationship with the subject.

Fandom is concerned with one’s attitude to the subject, not the extent or frequency of participation.
It’s reasonable to assume that any person claiming or defending their fan-status has a positive/affinitive attitude towards the subject. That is, in fact, the very thing the two opponents would have in common. Therefore, how can a community further measure who is, say, more dedicated or more influenced by the subject? A convenient and helpful method of considering this is one’s involvement with the subject. Merchandise, conventions, and collections are not the only means [as is also heavily influenced by available spending income]. A reliable, reasonable indication is how well the person knows the subject [including quotations, predicting the plot, knowing the characters and their development], which often stems from repeated interaction with the subject (repeated viewing, listening, playing etc).

How would enforcing degrees of fandom improve the community; why is a person’s fandom someone else’s concern?
A fandom is, indeed, a community. As such, it requires coexistence (hopefully a peaceful one) between its members. To interact with other people in a typical social situation, it’s very helpful to know some basic things about them: their name, your relation to them, their comfort in the situation, their comfort around you, why they are present etc. It follows then that, in a specific situation – such as a fandom – those basic things should relate to the subject: their favourite character, their favourite album, what they hope will happen next season, their thoughts on the upcoming project etc. Classifying degrees of fandom simply helps each other understand better the people with whom they’re interacting, allowing more smooth communication.

AFTERMATH

---

While writing those points, all I can think about is my rebuttal against them. With each negative point I can, undoubtedly, argue the affirmative with more precision and a higher degree of logic.
I’ve been debating at my senior school for three years, and with every debate topic everyone typically agrees that there is a ‘right’ side and a ‘wrong’ side. However, no matter which side you’re on, you’re required to anticipate the opposing team’s arguments. That is, you have to think from their perspective.

Having practiced this, I believe I’m more adept at realising other people’s arguments. ALTHOUGH, I often use this very mild super power for evil: I skim through their logic in my mind then fervently argue against it, feeling secure in the reasoning of my position but neglecting their position because I believe I’ve already dealt with it. Which can all be overcome by listening more intently.

This was a very cool idea, Dan. It’s good to challenge your own mindset, and this is a clever way to go about it - the subjects about which we’re most passionate should be the ones about which we’re most well-informed.