I want to! - Page 2

Rhapsody1447 · 12-25-06, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftyHenry

I want to Reverse Debate too. I would RD Abortion. I'm Pro-Choice -- So i'd do pro-life in the RD

Haha I want to see Lefty debate FOR capitalism against TOT debating FOR socialism.

Thelost1 · 12-25-06, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

Haha I want to see Lefty debate FOR capitalism against TOT debating FOR socialism.

The ultimate reverse debate!

galenrox · 12-26-06, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpooK

What is your stance on abortion?

pro choice and anti abortion. I think abortion is immoral because of the fact that there is a good chance that life does begin at conception, and thus if you have an abortion it is with the knowledge that you very may be killing your own baby, but that being said, it's belief based on nothing, and thus to legislate on anything other than consensus, which is life beginning at viability, would be legislating a religious belief.

galenrox · 12-26-06, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Okay, give me a synopsis of your stances on various issues, and i'll tell you what we don't agree on.

Alright, pro-choice/anti abortion (as I said in the last post), morally I'm for gay marriage, but I think legislatively the response should be elimination of marriage as a governmental institution, replacing it with civil unions for everything, and leave marriage to the people and their beliefs, and not to the government. I'm not sure if we should've gone into Iraq, but I believe very strongly that we need to stay. I'm for legalizing all drugs, and promoting honest drug education (which isn't possible until they're all legalized, since now education cannot reflect drugs honestly, for if it did everyone would see how stupid prohibition is). I am opposed to smoking bans. Very much so for free markets. Supported the Bush tax cuts. I am opposed to the minimum wage, and I think of discussions of the living wage as a means of dealing with poverty is similar to discussing "Stay the course" or "Cut and run" as a means to solving the problems we face in Iraq, since "living wage" is just another meaningless talking point. I support outsourcing, and I think our response should be making education a life long thing, thus giving those whom have had their jobs outsourced the opportunity to gain a skill and compete with those who are in no fear of having their jobs outsourced. I am opposed to subsidies to companies, and think all subsidies should be given to the consumer, not the producer. I think agricultural subsidies are possibly the dumbest thing we are doing, and that most terrorism is a product, directly or indirectly, of these subsidies. I think we need to make China a much greater ally, instead of taking a confrontational stance, since I think that China will soon be more important than all of Europe combined.

I can't imagine that you agree with me on all of this, since I am clearly bat**** insane, but if you do, I'll think of some other stances!

1069 · 12-26-06, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

Alright, pro-choice/anti abortion (as I said in the last post), morally I'm for gay marriage, but I think legislatively the response should be elimination of marriage as a governmental institution, replacing it with civil unions for everything, and leave marriage to the people and their beliefs, and not to the government. I'm not sure if we should've gone into Iraq, but I believe very strongly that we need to stay. I'm for legalizing all drugs, and promoting honest drug education (which isn't possible until they're all legalized, since now education cannot reflect drugs honestly, for if it did everyone would see how stupid prohibition is). I am opposed to smoking bans. Very much so for free markets. Supported the Bush tax cuts. I am opposed to the minimum wage, and I think of discussions of the living wage as a means of dealing with poverty is similar to discussing "Stay the course" or "Cut and run" as a means to solving the problems we face in Iraq, since "living wage" is just another meaningless talking point. I support outsourcing, and I think our response should be making education a life long thing, thus giving those whom have had their jobs outsourced the opportunity to gain a skill and compete with those who are in no fear of having their jobs outsourced. I am opposed to subsidies to companies, and think all subsidies should be given to the consumer, not the producer. I think agricultural subsidies are possibly the dumbest thing we are doing, and that most terrorism is a product, directly or indirectly, of these subsidies. I think we need to make China a much greater ally, instead of taking a confrontational stance, since I think that China will soon be more important than all of Europe combined.

I can't imagine that you agree with me on all of this, since I am clearly bat**** insane, but if you do, I'll think of some other stances!

Well, hrrm... let's see here.
The biggest areas of disagreement we have, as far as I can tell, are that I support both a (higher) minimum wage, and smoking bans.
I'm not so sure I could debate either economics or international politics on your level, without doing an awful lot of research and independent studying (which seems too much like work, and would probably take a long time), because domestic sociopolitical and human rights issues are my main bag.

I guess we could debate smoking bans, if you want.

It's pitiful how few of the rabid social conservatives on the forum have taken interest in this idea.
It's not a very exciting prospect, reverse-debating with people I agree with 98% of the time...

galenrox · 12-26-06, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Well, hrrm... let's see here.
The biggest areas of disagreement we have, as far as I can tell, are that I support both a (higher) minimum wage, and smoking bans.
I'm not so sure I could debate either economics or international politics on your level, without doing an awful lot of research and independent studying (which seems too much like work, and would probably take a long time), because domestic sociopolitical and human rights issues are my main bag.

I guess we could debate smoking bans, if you want.

It's pitiful how few of the rabid social conservatives on the forum have taken interest in this idea.
It's not a very exciting prospect, reverse-debating with people I agree with 98% of the time...

lol, I hate to break it to you, but I consider myself a rabid social conservative!

We can do smoking bans if you like. And I appreciate the compliment of my level of international and economic debate, although I can't say that it's necessarily accurate

So how do we do this?

I'm gonna be out of touch until Saturday, but I'll talk to you then!

Just think, maybe you're unwittingly a rabid social conservative

1069 · 12-26-06, 05:57 PM

Quote:

I'm gonna be out of touch until Saturday, but I'll talk to you then!

Works for me.

I guess in the meantime, I'll study up on smoker's rights, if I'm going to argue for them.

(... who ever heard of a "rabid social conservative" that's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage...? *grumble*)

Felicity · 12-27-06, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

It's pitiful how few of the rabid social conservatives on the forum have taken interest in this idea.

I think you would label me one such as that....

I answered your request in the original thread--here...I'll copy it over here for you..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/feedba...ds-debate.html (Backwards debate)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069
if we had a debate where I argued the prolife position, and somebody like Felicity argued for prochoice.

My only reservation is that I know what arguments work best against my own position, and I'd get frustrated when the "reversed other-side" eventually resorts to the emotional/subjective stereotype that most pro-choicers come to the debate assuming of their opposition and it would degenerate into a mocking caricature of the rational pro-life position. Frankly--I don't trust 1069 to offer her best effort if she sees an opportunity to deride--I don't think she has the restraint.
Another issue...

There is a plethora of variations on positions on both side in an abortion debate...there would have to be specific "givens" stated for the "pro-choice" position and also for the "pro-life" position. For example: I am one who believes contraception that intentionall inhibits implantation of a zygote is an early abortion. Many of my fellow pro-lifers disagree. However, I believe if my position is consistant to its logical conclusion--there is no denying that. That is a "given" in my position, but not so for some other pro-lifers. Likewise, Some pro-choicers become "pro-life" after the fetus is 20 or so weeks gestated. Others argue the age of the fetus is irrelevant. The givens matter in assuming a position not your own, IMO.

1069 · 12-27-06, 09:25 AM

Sigh.
Go away, Felicity.
I'm very tired of you, suddenly.
Can't you please just go away from me for awhile?
What the heck are you doing here?
This has got nothing to do with you.

vauge · 12-27-06, 10:15 AM

Moderator's Warning:

This thread was created to form interest in reverse debates.

If you are curious, feel free to put your name in the hat.

If you are not interested, please do not flame those who wish to pursue this experiement.

Also, this thread is not topical - please utilize or create new threads to discuss/debate your position of your topical interest in the correct forum.

Thanks!!