I want to! - Page 4

Felicity · 12-27-06, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Do you agree to at least remain consistant--no matter the position? Often I find people argue two ways and don't acknowledge their inconsistancy. Consistancy is important in debate because it reflects the validity of the argument. If one isn't consistant, the debate degenerates into a rabbit chase--chasing down the contradicting statements and the topic gets lost amid the dust.

1069 · 12-27-06, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Do you agree to at least remain consistant--no matter the position?

No. I don't agree to any prearranged conditions.
Now, do you want to go, or what?
You know you want to...

(... or you could always just chicken out and debate Henry; maybe he'll agree to your conditions.)

Felicity · 12-27-06, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

No. I don't agree to any prearranged conditions.
Now, do you want to go, or what?
You know you want to...

(... or you could always just chicken out and debate Henry; maybe he'll agree to your conditions.)

I would love to see you support the pro-life side--but as I said, I don't trust you to do a good job. I'll have to think about it. On the one hand, I'm tempted to stomp you on your own turf (but that's just me being prideful)--on the other hand, I care too much about preseving life that I am hesitant to allow you to represent the pro-life side poorly. Lemme think about it.

vauge · 12-27-06, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The mod warning in this thread was addressed to no one person in particular but to everyone that helped this thread go off topic. Your post was by no means the first to migrate toward posters instead of topics. It seemed to start out in jest about you and 1069 - it developed quickly into non-humorous flaming. However, it was clear that a back step was needed to help re-align with the goals of this thread.

I believe the reverse debates is a fantastic idea and would personally like to see it mature into a feature that can be enlightening and educational for everyone involved.

Again, IMO - it is by far the hardest type of debate to do as one has to mute their own ideals and beliefs in order to represent the reversed position.

Felicity · 12-27-06, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

The mod warning in this thread was addressed to no one person in particular but to everyone that helped this thread go off topic. Your post was by no means the first to migrate toward posters instead of topics. It seemed to start out in jest about you and 1069 - it developed quickly into non-humorous flaming. However, it was clear that a back step was needed to help re-align with the goals of this thread.

I believe the reverse debates is a fantastic idea and would personally like to see it mature into a feature that can be enlightening and educational for everyone involved.

Again, IMO - it is by far the hardest type of debate to do as one has to mute their own ideals and beliefs in order to represent the reversed position.

I'm sensitive to this lately. I'm sure you'll understand why that might be.

Felicity · 12-27-06, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

I would love to see you support the pro-life side--but as I said, I don't trust you to do a good job. I'll have to think about it. On the one hand, I'm tempted to stomp you on your own turf (but that's just me being prideful)--on the other hand, I care too much about preseving life that I am hesitant to allow you to represent the pro-life side poorly. Lemme think about it.

Oh...another thing...I also have some reservations about representing that which is indefensible in reality. I'm not a good liar and I'd basically be agreeing to lose LOGICALLY..

1069 · 12-27-06, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

I would love to see you support the pro-life side--but as I said, I don't trust you to do a good job.... Oh...another thing...I also have some reservations about representing that which is indefensible in reality. I'm not a good liar and I'd basically be agreeing to lose LOGICALLY..

Fine. I understand. Next...?