Just Whatever

I'm just going to be posting what I've studied or learned revolving around philosophy, logic, and debate. Probably some other things I find interesting, but these will be the main categories. I debate on the debate team for HS & College. Made 8/10/17

[antisjwaction]

Tips for a good debate:

-Try not to strawman the other side’s argument. 

Example:

Person 1: I am a feminist.

Person 2: Oh, so you want all white men dead?

-Refrain from use of ad hominem.

Example:

Person 1: The wage gap is calculated by all jobs and does not reflect hours put in.

Person 2: Well, you’re stupid!

-Use evidence to back up your claim.

Example: 

Person 1: Feminists have protested against domestic violence shelters for men. {Source}

Person 2: Women are raped more often than men. {Source}

[rock-and-revolt]

Me thinking about the growing threat of Trump inciting nuclear war because North Korea insulted his haircut and spray-tan:

[flowpaper]

Things to do after debate season ends

1) wait for debate season to start again

2) miss the past debate season

[hackfixation]

Tips for debating

I’ve debated in high school and have been seeing a lot of arguments stem from discussions about sensitive topics recently. So, I figured why not help others by giving tips so they can have an informative discussion. 

Be respectful - your opponent’s opinion may seem ridiculous even wrong to you but they also could believe that about your opinion. So try not to make your opponent seem dumb or inconsiderate because their views are different.

DO NOT USE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS

Try to use legitimate sources as much as possible when using facts.

Listen to your opponent - their side of the debate is just as important as yours, no matter how idiotic or frustrating it may seem to you.

Stay calm - try as much as possible to not get angry, no matter how ignorant the other person’s view may be.

Ask questions - if you don’t understand certain aspects of your opponent’s argument then ask.

Admit when you make a mistake - this is the hardest part of a debate, admitting when you were in the wrong. 

hopefully, this will help those of you who wish to change someone’s opinion.

[omghavesomefun-blog1]

Comments

I sincerely enjoy the comments I’m getting on my posts and encourage them. They help me build my logic and arguments and I’m thankful being able to get closer to truth and to be able to reconsider the reasoning I use. 

[omghavesomefun-blog1]

Bodily Autonomy

Just a quick argument against bodily autonomy in the contexts of abortions. 

My argument would be as follows,

Premise 1) All (bodies) are that which (should be given bodily autonomy)

Premise 2) (Fetuses) are (bodies).

Conclusion 3) Therefore, (fetuses) are that which (should be given bodily autonomy).

So common objections would be to premise 2, where they state that fetuses are not bodies. This claim at face value makes somewhat sense, but the problem with this is that the refutation sits on the false premise that fetuses are conceived immaterially. This is of course impossible, and denied by the physical component of cells. Someone’s response to what I just said would go along the lines of “but they don’t have a brain, heart, etc.”, yet this is drawing an arbitrary and personal line to suit their preference or argument. Similarly, if we have a debate on whether slavery should be re-instituted, and someone brings up a personal definition that excludes a certain race from the label “human” vs a definition from Merriam Webster that says no races are excluded, the latter definition will win and should win.

To maintain our best shot at objective truths, we must not substitute personal feelings to replace objective essences. We cannot all of the sudden say, this category of people is excluded from “humans”.

[omghavesomefun-blog1]

My syllogism against abortion

I am pro-life. I've heard many perspectives of people that are pro-choice. I've been in countless debates, talked to many people, but after synthesizing all the arguments and research, I’ve decided to stick with pro-life. This argument I find to be similar to the syllogism Peter Kreeft makes against abortion, and it has had great success in numerous debates. It goes like this:

Premise 1) It is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent person Premise 2) An unborn human being is an innocent human person Conclusion 3) Therefore, it is wrong to deliberately kill an unborn human being

Common objections to this syllogism are against premise 2, where opponents claim that the human being is not a person. I disagree, I've never heard of a non-person human being.

Another common objection is that it's not black and white as I put it, and abortion can be justified because of finances, rape, etc. This objection doesn't refute the syllogism, the syllogism just establishes that the act of abortion is wrong, but not that it's unjustifiable. Someone could concede the syllogism and then move onto whether it's justifiable, and that's another debate to be had.