doughgirl

“
Not in any way possible.





You meant to say pro-abortion and anti-abortion, right?

Quote:

Galenrox said, “

You are right, it is immoral because of the reasons you stated. It is killing, that is the goal of every abortion doctor performing one…..to kill that which is living…terminate its life.
Your belief is based on medical facts, not religious ones, so its not nothing. The heart starts beating the first month and there are measurable brain waves. So your position is right.

Well doesn’t this say it all.

I wasn’t aware that this was an invitation only thread, did you Felicity?

I came cause I wanted to see the debate where 1069 argues for the life of the unborn child, which looks like it won’t happen anyway. To afraid arguing against it might change views and ya know when you’re a radical left abortion supporter ya can't be to careful.

tecoyah

Now that the baggage has been stowed. I would be interested in finding out how this might work....please include me in the list of "open for debate"......I really dont care what topic,as it seems the format is more important at this point.

__________________
Self-Banned

vauge

This thread is not about abortion. It is about interest in reverse debates.

Doing a reverse debate is a very big challenge regardless of your position. If you are intersted, put your name up.

If two persons have committed - create the private reverse debate (see thread in this forum how to do it) - and start reverse debating.

And yes, everyone that is interested is welcome. However, both parties must acknowledge and commit before creating the reverse debate thread.

Thanks!

1069

I have a reverse debate scheduled with galenrox for next Saturday; the topic is smoking bans.
LeftyHenry is interested in reverse-debating the issue of abortion; he is prochoice, and wants to argue the prolife side.
I am also interested in doing this, and in fact sent LeftyHenry a PM a few days ago suggesting a tag-team-style debate, with me and him arguing the prolife side against two prolifers who would argue the prochoice side. He has not yet responded.
In the PM, I suggested to him that we invite two of the following to be our opponents: Felicity, Jerry, or Talloulou. Some combination of those three.
If LeftyHenry is not interested in doing this, then he is welcome to debate the issue solo, and I will too, in a seperate debate, against whoever wants to debate me.

What this will not turn into (excuse me, Vauge, but seriously...) is yet another "1069 sucks" thread, because I will not have it.

As Vauge mentioned, this is a thread for people to suggest reverse debate topics, and or step up and challenge someone to a reverse debate.
It is not a thread to discuss the perceived personal shortcomings of other forum members.
There is a section of the forum for that; it's called the basement.

Thank you.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

Felicity

For the record...I would be interested if the givens were established as I recommended and the opponent would agree to not resort to stereotypical pro-life histrionics. Abortion debate was specifically mentioned in this thread as well as the other. Hence the relevancy of MY post in this thread. Furthermore--the suggestion that it is "pitiful" social conservatives haven't joined in was addressed--again--relevant. So, therefore, I assume your mod comment was not concerning my post (though I think tecoyah may have assumed otherwise). Please correct me if I am wrong and explain.

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

1069

Perhaps you will find someone who will agree to comply with your conditions, but it will not be me.
My feeling is this: a person who resorts to the "stereotypical histrionics" of their ideological adversaries will prove themselves to be a poor debater, and will lose the game.
However, anyone who debates me is free to debate in whatever style or manner they are capable of.
If they debate poorly, I will tear them up, and I will win.
If they only want an opportunity to mock their ideological adversaries, they needn't bother with a "reverse debate"; they are free to create threads satirizing anyone they want, at any time.

Felicity

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy is just so blatent that I simply cannot perceive that you would be capable of a fair reverse debate. It would be interesting if you could since I believe you are knowledgeable, but...as I said, your restraint is questionable. That's on topic isn't it--since you have specifically named me as a possible opponant.

1069

Well, when you've resolved your conflict, come see me.
If not, hasta.

PS Another option, if you want to reverse-debate abortion but specifically don't want me as an opponent, is that you accept Henry's challenge.

Felicity

So you are saying that you would not do that? I can accept that as an agreement to the first issue. The lack of insight as to the hypocritical "1069 sucks" notion concerns me--but, you are right--it does only reflect on you.

What about the givens of the position? Would you take the position that life begins at conception rather than implantation? either way is fine--but I would need to know from what angle you would be addressing "life." I could take any pro-choice position of your choosing.

1069

I don't get to know these things about my opponent, when I debate prolifers in an ordinary debate.
I have to be prepared for anything.

It's like you want to challenge somebody to a fight, but then you want to say, "Wait, let's agree on the rules- no kicking below the belt, no sucker-punches, etc, etc."
It just doesn't work that way.

DebatePolitics has rules; the rules are in effect here in the reverse debate section just as they are elsewhere.
Those rules are sufficient.

In answer to your question, I don't know what angle I'd use to debate the prolife side, if I did debate it... and even if I did know, I wouldn't tell my opponent in advance.