zunshynn Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 In my speech class, we're doing Lincoln Douglas debate, and he had us sign up for certain issues, and what side we were on. So I signed up to be Euthanasia-negative. But then my teacher says at the end of the period, "now you have whatever issue you signed up for, but you're on the opposite side of what you wanted." I begged him to change me... but he wouldn't even listen. He was like, "it'll make you a better debater." I CAN'T argue the affirmative. I don't know what to do. I feel like I should just take the F... but I'm so upset!
Brother Adam Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 Your treasure is in heaven. Or you could debate all the negative points anyway. "We should euthenize people because we have no respect for the dignity of life", "We should euthenize people because it is ungodly and evil and we are an evil society". things that will really hit people hard. hey, you did what you were suppose to right! I'd take the teacher on.
theculturewarrior Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 Here's what I would do. Study the affirmative position well, but study the negative position better. Share your results with the other side prior to the debate. Just a thought.
cmotherofpirl Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 17 2005, 07:18 PM']Your treasure is in heaven. Or you could debate all the negative points anyway. "We should euthenize people because we have no respect for the dignity of life", "We should euthenize people because it is ungodly and evil and we are an evil society". things that will really hit people hard. hey, you did what you were suppose to right! I'd take the teacher on. [right][snapback]761683[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Good show!!!!
Brother Adam Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 How about this: "In debating the affirmative, I have discovered that there is no logical, moral, or ethical reason as to why we should euthenize people because all men have the basic right to life, and it volates any person and makes a mockery of the gift of God to destroy any life. God gives, and only God takes away, blessed by the name of the Lord"
Brother Adam Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 frankly I think your teacher is a complete moron. Why would it 'help your debate skills' to argue a position you can't take? What an idiot. A person wont' have any passion to argue something they vehemently disagree with and therefore wont' bother trying to argue the opposite position.
zunshynn Posted October 17, 2005 Author Posted October 17, 2005 I think the idea is that we'll be forced to be passionate about something for a grade, so our arguments will be more substantial or whatever. So it will be on facts not emotion. But so what, the only flimsy argument I can use is "the government can't make people live if they don't want to. Blah blah." 15 minutes about that... great. If I had a little issue, like minimum wage or something, I'd have no problem with it. But this is so not fair. And he thought it was funny that I was trying to change my position.
Brother Adam Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 If its a 15 minute speech go the 'we should cause we're evil" route. You can teach them alot about respect for life in 15 minutes. Be sure to open and close in prayer and to read the Bible. If you have to go down, go down in glorious flames!
cmotherofpirl Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 As a debater you should be able to argue either position. Its a common teaching technique and gives you insight into your opponents arguments.
Brother Adam Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 maybe on smaller issues. but I could not keep a straight face and argue why we should murder unborn children anymore than I could keep a straight face and argue that we should rape and otherwise sexually assualt children.
Nathan Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Just look at like you're an actor playing a bad guy.
Thumper Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 17 2005, 07:56 PM']As a debater you should be able to argue either position. Its a common teaching technique and gives you insight into your opponents arguments. [right][snapback]761711[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well put, Cmom. If we never come to understand the reasoning of the people with whom we disagree, we are unlikely to be able to 1) communicate effectively with them about the core issues; 2) understand the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments--and of our own. St. Thomas Aquinas is the model for this. He was unafraid to take on the best objections and to understand them thoroughly before making his own theological argument. The Summa didn't just fall from the sky. It was based in revelation via scripture and tradition, but also on a thorough reading of many people who had gone before him. You can do this, and it can make you a better defender of life than ever before.
Brother Adam Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 No it is not well put. Aquinas also refuted every argument in the same section that he came up with from 'the opposing side'. If you read his Summa he addresses point by point the argument his opponent makes (even those arguments his opponent hasn't thought up of yet) and refutes them. In this case our fellow PM'er will not be able to do this. She has to fight for an evil position in public. That is wrong. Woudl you hold the same position if she had to fight for an evil society still accepts is wrong, such as rape? I think you would sing a different tune.
cmotherofpirl Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 (edited) No I wouldn't. The idea is to teach debate skills, not the actual topic in question. I had to argue for legal prostition and other such nonsense in class as well. It actually forces you to learn your opponents reasoning and facts. Just like you need to know all the opponents arguments in apologetics to lead someone to the Church. Edited October 18, 2005 by cmotherofpirl
Thumper Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 17 2005, 08:09 PM']No it is not well put. Aquinas also refuted every argument in the same section that he came up with from 'the opposing side'. If you read his Summa he addresses point by point the argument his opponent makes (even those arguments his opponent hasn't thought up of yet) and refutes them. In this case our fellow PM'er will not be able to do this. She has to fight for an evil position in public. That is wrong. Woudl you hold the same position if she had to fight for an evil society still accepts is wrong, such as rape? I think you would sing a different tune. [right][snapback]761723[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course he refuted every argument. I didn't just read the "It would seem" sections. Am I thrilled that zunshynn is being asked to advocate for a position contrary to her beliefs? No. But not taking seriously the other side's argument leaves Catholics looking ill-informed and fideist. And making a mockery out of the other side's position is to simply enact an ad hominem attack (with the result that we look again—ill-informed and fideist). Rather, by following through with this assignment cogently and intelligently, she may in the future be better able to know what points need to be made in order to uphold her own position. It is to be hoped and prayed that the person who will be arguing against her (whatever that student's personal beliefs) will also honestly and intelligently present an argument against euthanasia so that the truth can be heard.
Brother Adam Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 17 2005, 08:14 PM']No I wouldn't. The idea is to teach debate skills, not the actual topic in question. I had to argue for legal prostition and other such nonsense in class as well. It actually forces you to learn your opponents reasoning and facts. Just like you need to know all the opponents arguments in apologetics to lead someone to the Church. [right][snapback]761727[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Knowing your enemy and playing your enemy are two totally separate issues. If you want to know why someone is a Protestant you don't have to 'play a Protestant', you can study their beliefs. Kids believe what they learn in school. If the she does her job well there could be 30 more students who believe that attacking human life is morally acceptable. I've seen it happen myself, and it is very wrong. Here we study the prolife/prochoice issue alot. We 'know our emeny'. We know the arguments the prochoicers use, and they respect us for it, but that does not mean we go around in a place where there is already a profound deal of moral and ethical confusion and do something even more confusing like trying to convince people the culture of death is right. This position is nonsense. I totally understanding not wanting to hear the words "I believe we should murder people because" come out of your own mouth. [added] And she can't, like Aquinas refute the position. She has to do her best to prove murder is acceptable for a good grade. Edited October 18, 2005 by Brother Adam
avemaria40 Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 My AP teacher says to play devil's advocate b/c then you can get to know why you're fighting against it in the first place, and when you do argue ur side against the opponent, you can win them too your side or at least make their argument seem pointless.
prose Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 (edited) I had to do the same thing in a uni class. But I had a much easier time b/c I only had to debate for animal testing, which was quite easy for me. Ours was just assigned, not chosen. I know how you feel about not wanting to compromise your values, but you still probably want to pass. Hard call. Maybe (if you are brave enough) approach him privately with the previously stated [quote]I have discovered that there is no logical, moral, or ethical reason as to why we should euthenize people because all men have the basic right to life, and it volates any person and makes a mockery of the gift of God to destroy any life. God gives, and only God takes away.[/quote] I know that in our liberal society, ESPECIALLY in universities, we are encouraged to compromise our values. I will pray for you. Good luck! And let us know what happens! Edited October 18, 2005 by prose
Brother Adam Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Our battle cry should always be: "Death before sin."
Jaime Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 The class is not on learning how to make moral decisions. Its on debate. Its a constructive teaching technique to learn to argue the opposing side of what you believe. But I truly doubt that under the circumstances, anyone is going to walk out convinced that Euthenasia is morally correct. Research your points Detail your rebuttals Wear a "Euthanasia is wrong" t shirt to class.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now