|
|
|
|
#62
12-02-2008
|
||||
|
||||
¬_¬
Shock? Would take more than an Image to shock you ¬_¬ Either way you wouldn't have believed me and i did say WARNING, You did not have to look, That is more of to look at to count everything I listed more so than to shock you into believing I am right, its like posting an Image of Stalingrad after world war 2, its to prove it was brutal, It makes the scene more real if you can see the image As for the idea of Capitalizing Homosexual is for my bad grammar reasons, I use capitals to highlight the major words in a sentence... Yeah.... I am that Stupid Anyways I knew I would lose, it was Overmind, I believe I stated "Shit" before the debate began XD 
|
|
#64
12-02-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Look above at my Edit, I missed the question, I replied to page 2 before yours and completely missed it,
Its a grammar thing I do, I randomly Highlight words in my sentences sometimes, Usually words after commas or just plain long words I feel like Highlighting
|
|
#67
12-02-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, I didn't look. I just don't think it's necessary to post pictures of aborted foetuses. Stating facts about the way in which they develop would have been sufficient.
|
|
#70
12-02-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I just think that trying to shock people into coming around to your way of thinking is inappropriate in a contest that's all about debate skills. No biggie.
|
|
#72
12-02-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
No, i didn't put that there for a shock, Its there to prove my point, Any statistic can be made up on the spot, And without proof can be believed or disbelieved on the spot, However the image is real, its to show I am not making up facts, IT IS TRUE
Thats my point about Stalins quote "One man dead is a tragedy, 6 million is a statistic" Because with the one man you can look at his story and know he was human, Harder to let go. With 6 million very little there to prove anything about all 6 million apart form the number, Making our minds think it is easier to let go.
|
|
#73
12-02-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok, I understand what you were trying to do a bit better now. I still don't agree with it, but I understand.
|
|
#74
12-02-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Either way, it's still an attempt to use a visceral argument over a rational one, which, although it may be an effective persuasive strategy at times, certainly isn't an ethical one.
But I'm not a judge (although I'm starting to wish I was), so I'll shut up now and go away. Although I will say, isn't it interesting that we're getting more of a debate out of the results of the previous debate than from the previous debate itself?
|
|
#75
12-03-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#76
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is a rational Arguement, Facts are made up all the time,
Humans do things like this, Pictures can prove things, And I still believe placing images is right aslong as I placed a warning beside it, Which i did, It would be unfair if I just placed the image without warnign and Unethical But I did give you a chance to ignore it in caps, I also did the arguement in a sentence afterwards making it easy to understand without the Image, The image was just to make you see I was not making it up. Sides Images have to be used to prove things, In an actual debate or say a court case, You need images to back up the story, Its only logical
|
|
#77
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
The point everyone is trying to make is that your image was posted to make an emotional appeal. Although appealing to the emotions of others is a good way to make others see your point, it is also a logical fallacy. A pictures of terrible things are sometimes used out of context and can distort the reality of the situation. Just by posting a picture of an aborted fetus, you are only showing the "bad" aspect of the issue. I could just as easily post a picture of a happy college graduate who only got the chance to finish school because she had an abortion. Both pictures show real events, but neither allow the viewer to see the full scope of the situation.
If you want another example of emotional appeal, take a look at my first debate. Both Tatterdemalion and myself used this logical fallacy to help get our points across. I'm not denying that it can be a useful tool of persuasion, but it is better to rely on hard facts and evidence rather trying to appeal to emotion in a serious debate. If you take note of why both of us lost points, you will see that the judges picked up on this fallacy and deducted points accordingly.
|
|
#78
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Its not my job to show the good sides, Wouldn't be a good debate if I showed Overminds topic, I'd have handed over the debate,
he was supposed to show his views, I was to show mine, So by the end you should have got the whole picture, Thats what a debate is ¬_¬ I would be taken more points away if I showed Overminds point, Wouldn't you agree? Sides I didn't show ANY of the good things of Abortion during my debate,, Same as overmind didn't show any bad... Therefore I do not accept "you are only showing the "bad" aspect of the issue" because thats what i was meant to do... Also that is a hard fact, It shows the fact Its an image of death, it shows death in history books, Biology books and Others... I'm going to stop at that because I can see now that none of you are going to change your minds and decide it should be correct but I leave this dying point at Was it right to take pictures of the Concentration Camp Jews dying and Dead? Was it right to show them? Is it right to show them? I believe so, You need to see these images to show the emotion, Otherwise they are just words on a page
|
|
#81
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
A picture can't give a proper prospective on the issue. A picture shows one event at one point in history. You could very easily find a picture depicting the worst of the worst, regardless of whether or not the actual event is as bad as the picture would have you to believe. For example, if you wanted to draw attention to the poverty level in a particular area, would a picture of a destitute family living in a tent get your point across better than a picture of the wealthy old man living across the street? It sure would, but you wouldn't be accurately portraying the living situation of the entire area. Pictures can sometimes distort the truth by not telling you the whole story.
I understand that you don't have to present OverMind's case for him, but you should be able to state your opinions without misrepresenting the truth. I'm sure there are other ways you can get people to side with you without resorting to the shock value of a picture that was meant to make people view abortion as a disgusting practice. Just because you are representing one side of this debate doesn't mean you can ignore the other side entirely. You need to be aware of both sides of the issue and explain how your point of view is superior to your opponents. I shouldn't get sucked into this any further. I'm supposed to be writing a research paper.
|
|
#82
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
But the thing is that you're not conveying any actual information with your image, it's not telling us anything about abortion that we didn't already know. The only thing that your image can show us is exactly what an aborted fetus looks like, but at the same time, what an aborted fetus looks like has no rational connection to whether abortion should be legal or not.
The Holocaust and its associated images are difference, becvause you have to keep in mind that before images and video of concentration camps and the like made it into the media, people were generally unware of the conditions and treatment of prisoners in Nazi Germany. It's a similar thing with the more recent Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In these cases, it's journalism, because there's relevant information being conveyed by the image. Your image isn't actually conveying any relevant information, so it's not the same thing. And yes, without the images you can't "show the emotion" and you'd just have "words on a page." Also, keep in mind that's the entire point. The point of a debate is for two people to present a well organized, rational argument, using logic and reasoning to advocate a particular viewpoint. Emotion has nothing to do with it. And to use a visual aid that has no place in the rational argument itself, in an attempt to create "emotion," is indeed unethical, because it is an attempt to work around a strong logical argument, filling in the holes with visceral outrage. The purpose of debate is, ideally, for the participants to rise above the effective, yet baseless and unethical coercion, manipulation, fear-mongering, peer-pressuring, viscerality and moral outrage of persuasion that we see every day, in order to participate in some sort of educated, enlightened discourse, and be secure in reason rather than be persuaded by blind emotion.. What you are doing is the opposite of that.
|
|
#83
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
less intermission, more next debate
|
|
#85
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
poke him.....with a sharp stick
|
|
#87
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Only 1 post each? Disappointing.
5-4 OverMind. I didn't really feel any sort of genuine conviction from either argument. Spoofs loses a point for going off-topic more.
|
|
#88
12-04-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Final Score:
OverMind-21 points Spoofs3-17 points Winner: OverMind Next debate will start whenever the debators start. Agrajagthetesty vs. leonhart321 on the topic of drug legalisation. Agrajag will suppourt the legalisation of drugs and leonhart321 will oppose the same. ...And start.
|
|
#89
12-06-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
*sighs*
I'm a day late and a dollar short, as usual. I wanted to point out that I made the mistake of not responding at all. This was a disservice to all of you, especially Spoofs3 and Zairak, both of whom I personally PMed ensuring that my response (which is still unfinished) would be posted on time. Of course, it must have been annoying to some judges who really wanted to get into the debate but were, perhaps, waiting for me to make a rebuttal. Had the debate carried on properly, Spoofs may have even won (he came off a lot stronger than, admittedly, I thought he would ... who knows, maybe he could have gotten a lot stronger). Further, he made some good points and you can't blame him for trying ... granted, he took some creative measures to illustrate his argument (some of which the judges disagree with on fundamental grounds), but not all of us are well-versed in debating. Hopefully, this thread will allow users of little experience to learn, while still providing the more experienced with a chance to fine-tune their skills. To avoid rambling, I feel that failing to reply should result in point deductions for myself (I can't even provide a justifiable reason for why I never replied). Anyway, sorry to impede on the current debate. Carry on.
|
|
#90
12-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Its ok, It still was a good debate and made the judges easier to decide with only one arguement each XD
Either way it was a good debate and you won fair and square. Also, I Realise how much can be stolen for this debate on drugs from my debate against abortion, I added in that topic alot about legalizing abortion... ANYWAY, Thats not why I typed in, I was meant to say, Can judges bring up "Points of Information"? It will make the debates more interesting and give the judges a chance to correct mislead facts if any Debater decides to try cheat by making up facts
|
 |
|
|
