|
Post by DanRezler on Jul 4, 2013 11:39:58 GMT -5
The idea is simple.
Take a position or stance you believe in passionately and argue the exact opposite as reasonably and persuasively as you can.
Once you've done this for yourself go back and read through everyone else's responses and see if anything they've said has changed the way you think about an issue. I don't expect that anybody will change their mind on any particular position, but hopefully someone you would typically agree with will argue a position you'd typically disagree with in such a way that it makes that position a little more sensible to you.
Feel free to respond again with what other people's arguments made you think and whether or not they were persuasive.
Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by mercaptan on Jul 4, 2013 13:38:34 GMT -5
... 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.)
|
|
|
Post by ettennly on Jul 4, 2013 13:56:23 GMT -5
New parents only have their baby's well being in mind. Often dwelling on whether or not they are making the correct decision for their child. Whether it be upholding a long held tradition in their religion or time spent doing research that led to their ultimate decision. Should they circumcise their son? There have been multiple studies through the years with research that there could be benefits to being circumcised. Such as a lower risk for UTI and general infection. A lower risk for penile cancer and some studies find this it could lower the risk of HIV transmission.
From a non medical standpoint circumcision is a long held tradition in Judaism seen as a covenant with God. That has been practiced for thousands of years. So could the medical benefits just be another pro? Shouldn't people be able to practice their religion and continue their traditions? Doesn't it seem like the benefits are worth it? Could this be the best decision for your son?
You want to do whats best for your child and maybe this could be the best option. Getting it done while they're a baby will make it easier on them and they won't have to remember the potential discomfort, that they would otherwise have to if they had it done when they were older. There are quite a few benefits they could reap from circumcision.
This was incredibly hard to do and I feel like it's not a very persuasive at all.
|
|
|
Post by themiragechild on Jul 4, 2013 14:44:10 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by randomstuff1019 on Jul 4, 2013 15:05:20 GMT -5
The Roman Empire once stretched the entire Mediterranean, and one of the longest lived "civilized" nation. Just like America, it was ruled by officials that were swayed heartily by the public. One of their great achievements was the creation of taxation for the construction of large complexes. This investment so long ago has resounded even in our day, creating economy's based solely on a small price thousands of years before. Even during that time, the construction of these large products, such as the aqueduct, was one of the driving forces to create thriving cities, economy, trade, culture, and invention. While we America may not be Rome, we follow loosely in their footsteps. Some of the largest constructions we have ever done, have led to the largest achievements in countless fields due to their broad, spilling effects. But the vastness of these investments that show on such a large scale, also show how smaller benefits to the economy and culture can in turn lead to large lasting effects. While not immediately apparent, the addition of resources to the populace from the leading heads of state cause large successive strides forward, securing our hold as one of the world's superpowers.
Btw, I kinda cheated. Some stuff I agreed with. But that's just cause I find that "the other side" usually has some grain of truth in it. As Peter Jackson's Treebeard put it: Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little Orc.
|
|
|
Post by EnemyofyourEnemy on Jul 4, 2013 16:08:03 GMT -5
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…
|
|
|
Post by paradewithanm on Jul 4, 2013 22:23:15 GMT -5
I've been sitting here for a while trying to come up with a completely opposite viewpoint for myself, but nearly every political opinion that I have already has caveats and can't (at least in my mind) be completely flipped. I've decided to instead argue my position on gay marriage, which doesn't really satisfy liberals or conservatives.
I'm assuming here that conservatives do not believe homosexuals should ever be married, while liberals believe they should be able to in any case.
I am not religious, but I believe marriage for many people is a promise to God (or gods) to remain faithful and supportive to your partner (I don't know enough about the FLDS to talk about polygamy). I don't think the government should have any place in that. So, I propose two separate systems. The government should be in the business of unions and divorces, while religion should work on marriage and annulments (or dissolvement or whatever you want to call them). The government should not be involved in deciding who should have access to the same benefits as currently married couples have. Therefore, homosexuals can be in a union, but if they want to be married, they have to deal with that religious organization.
Healthcare is probably my biggest political stance, so I want to tackle it, but I doubt this will go well. For background, I have Crohn's disease, POTS, and lyme disease, and have been hospitalized four times within the last six months for a total of 20 days. I have health insurance, but I was diagnosed before Obamacare and was terrified I wouldn't have it once I was cut off of my parents insurance.
The government should not be required to provide health insurance to all of its citizens. There is no way to see if the returns from a healthier population would be greater than the losses. Doctors and hospitals would be absolutely overrun by people who previously could not see medical professionals, and it would be more difficult to see a doctor. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right.
|
|
|
Post by SusanKC on Jul 5, 2013 3:12:37 GMT -5
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.
|
|
kales
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by kales on Jul 18, 2013 11:34:37 GMT -5
I'm still formulating my argument, but before that I have to respond to some of the previous ones:
Evan, the ice cream one was hilarious, I laughed out loud in my office and everyone stared at me funny.
Mairead, I like the stance on gay marriage. It was an interesting opinion and not one you hear very often as people are so one-sided on that issue and don't like to admit the grey area, nor do they like to talk about it for fear of offending people.
And Lynnette, circumcision was not one of the arguments I was expecting to find. Way to pick a different topic that isn't
|
|
|
Post by zoeatrics on Jul 21, 2013 8:46:56 GMT -5
Abortion is wrong because it is the killing of another living human being. It is wrong because, beyond a certain point in time, the foetus can feel pain, and causing pain and suffering to a fellow human being is wrong. It is wrong because children are some of the most vulnerable people in this world, and they require our protection more than anyone else. It is wrong because unwanted children can be adopted out, and don't necessarily need to be taken care of by the parents. It is wrong because teenagers and young women are not mature enough to make informed decisions about themselves. It is wrong because people should know the possible repercussions of sex and be willing to live with them. It is wrong because you were a foetus once too. It is wrong because, if it was legal and widely available, the system would be abused.
I've tried to do some research on this, and these are the most reasonable non-religious arguments I've been able to come up with. All of the rhetoric I had to sift through was disgusting though. The fact that even some pro-choice advocates see this as anything but an issue about women having the right to appropriate and adequate healthcare boggles the mind. Should I eventually became pregnant of my own will, if my membranes tore, if I was having a difficult miscarriage, if I had an ectopic pregnancy, if any one of the number of things that would go wrong did, my doctors would have to stand by and wait until my baby's heart beat stopped until I could receive proper medical care under most abortion laws. I just want abortion to be treated like literally every other medical procedure - decided by the person and their doctor. [/soapbox]
|
|