I have to argue euthanasia-affirmative...

[Brother Adam]

oh, but gosh hot stuff, wearing a "Euthanasia is wrong" t-shirt would defeat the purpose of the debate, because this is a debate class, and you will lose.

So, zunshynn, how many people are already convinced Euthanasia is morally acceptable who signed up to debate that it is acceptable, who will now likely, not work too hard to prove the opposing view?

I again assert that youth are impressionable and what they learn in school will indeed affect how they view certian topics. I was on a debate team in HS and on lesser topics I did learn about them through the debate team and in my own mind chose a side based on what was researched, gathered, and presented.

If she had to debate why greenhouse gases are causing global warming it would be one thing.

[Jaime]

[quote]oh, but gosh hot stuff, wearing a "Euthanasia is wrong" t-shirt would defeat the purpose of the debate, because this is a debate class, and you will lose.[/quote]

I've never been deducted points in debate by my apparel.

[Brother Adam]

I've never seen anyone do something that silly either. You are showing the audience and judge that you believe it is wrong even though you are arguing for it to be right, it makes a person far less convincing.

[Jaime]

Is it silly that I can argue my opponents viewpoint better than (s)he can? Or does it make my argument stronger?

[Brother Adam]

It weakens your argument, and especially on a topic like this, gives your audience and classmates the occasion to sin.

Edited October 18, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 17 2005, 09:57 PM']Is it silly that I can argue my opponents viewpoint better than (s)he can?  Or does it make my argument stronger?
[right][snapback]761846[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh ya - i agree, hot stuff
it really think it makes your argument stronger if you know both sides of the subject matter better than "the other guy"
this is a great excercise - and it can be an interesting but comfortable atmosphere when everyone in the classroom knows that nobody is really debating for a position they really personally believe in.

for me - in high school i wanted to debate PRO abortion... and i didnt get it, although i wanted it ...bummer...
i wanted it for the excercise - it was something i was just getting interested in as an issue
and I already knew where i personally stood - but i saw it as an opportunity to better understand the opposing viewpoint, so i could better defend my view

[Lounge Daddy]

and i think this is the first time EVER, as far as i know... i have an opinion contrary to Brother Adam's ...ever ...huh...

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:19 PM']and i think this is the first time EVER, as far as i know...  i have an opinion contrary to Brother Adam's      ...ever      ...huh...
[right][snapback]761879[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Debate me then. Let's see...it needs to be on something comparable to euthenasia...

You debate PRO - child pornography, I'll debate against. Once you agree I will set up the debate either on PM's debate board or Flyfree's.

[Jaime]

If you want to pick something comparable, you might want to pick something that is legal but immoral.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:29 PM']If you want to pick something comparable, you might want to pick something that is legal but immoral.
[right][snapback]761897[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It makes no differences if this 21st century american society still thinks it is immoral.

In some ways I suppose it could be argued that that child pornography is less of an offense than cold blooded murder

Edited October 18, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Thumper]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:26 PM']Debate me then. Let's see...it needs to be on something comparable to euthenasia...

You debate PRO - child pornography, I'll debate against. Once you agree I will set up the debate either on PM's debate board or Flyfree's.
[right][snapback]761892[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In the spirit of the thread, I think it would be more illuminating to have Brother Adam debate the Pro-"Immoral topic of your choice" and Lounge Daddy debate the Con. Just a thought.

What about prostitution for a topic?

[Maria]

Dunno if anyone has suggested this already, but I'd say to use irony. Learn the pro-Euthanasia arguments. It's a good thing to do in any case, especially since, as you said, you only know one flimsy argument know. Then you can decide what you want to use for your presentation. But what you could do is to make it a stupid emotional plea -- use the arguments that are used in such a way that it is obvious how wrong they are -- present them in a way that is easy to see through and refute. But do NOT make the Euthanasia side weaker than it is, because then you will have a counter-productive satire on your hands.

So, read all you can that argues pro-Euthanasia.
Then, think through, carefully, why it is wrong.
Then, present the pro arguments in such a way that their logical, immoral conclusion is obvious to all.
Just DON'T STATE IT right out.

Basically, make the issue clear to all those who hear.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Thumper' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:36 PM']In the spirit of the thread, I think it would be more illuminating to have Brother Adam debate the Pro-"Immoral topic of your choice" and Lounge Daddy debate the Con.  Just a thought.

What about prostitution for a topic?
[right][snapback]761911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The spirit of the thread would dictate that I would take the con becuase I believe debating pro-murder in a morally confused setting is wrong. The whole point is I will NOT debate something that is sinful when people are around that could be confused by what I'm saying, and God forbid think I'm right.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Maria' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:37 PM']Dunno if anyone has suggested this already, but I'd say to use irony. Learn the pro-Euthanasia arguments. It's a good thing to do in any case, especially since, as you said, you only know one flimsy argument know. Then you can decide what you want to use for your presentation. But what you could do is to make it a stupid emotional plea -- use the arguments that are used in such a way that it is obvious how wrong they are -- present them in a way that is easy to see through and refute. But do NOT make the Euthanasia side weaker than it is, because then you will have a counter-productive satire on your hands.

So, read all you can that argues pro-Euthanasia.
Then, think through, carefully, why it is wrong.
Then, present the pro arguments in such a way that their logical, immoral conclusion is obvious to all.
Just DON'T STATE IT right out.

Basically, make the issue clear to all those who hear.
[right][snapback]761914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's basically my first suggestion.

[Thumper]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:41 PM']The spirit of the thread would dictate that I would take the con becuase I believe debating pro-murder in a morally confused setting is wrong. The whole point is I will NOT debate something that is sinful when people are around that could be confused by what I'm saying, and God forbid think I'm right.
[right][snapback]761922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you implying that Phatmass is a morally confused setting?

And you're willing to put Lounge Daddy into the position of leading the little ones astray? That hardly seems like Christian charity.

I think that if you set up this debate on a separate thread, you'd be able to clearly indicate the parameters under which the debate should be understood.

Your debate. Just throwing in my two cents.