Debate Practice: Defend Your Opponents

I think a great strength in any debator is the ability to debate and defend any position well. So, to help everyone practice their debating skills, and to have some light-hearted fun at the same time, I propose we start a series of threads in which we take topics from current threads and debate them in the new threads but from the opposite (or at least different) position from the one we'd normally take.It's a pretty straight-forward idea, so there isn't much more to say about it. The point is to practice debating from the opposing side and to have fun too.Not sure where the admins will want this, so I put it in a proposed topic. If approved, we can start with input on which thread to "anti-copy" first and then maybe make a new thread devoted to that anti-copy, or continue in the current one for the time being. Ideally, we'd have an entire forum for anti-debating, and if this practice proves popular and useful, perhaps we can convince Percy to set one up ()something similar to the current practice forum, only for the purposes of practicing debate strategies instead of just technical features of the forum.So, let's get started.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Suggest you discuss which threads to propose here in the Coffee House, then they can be proposed over at Proposed New Topics.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

i have the theist answer for any thread god did it, and have you considered that you could be wrong

It's hard to think of an evolution/creation-related topic that actually has two sides to it. Creationist arguments usually boil down to, "Re-interpret the evidence in a way that gives the answer you want," and religious arguments usually boil down to, "Accept the dogma." I'm not convinced that arguing black is white will make anybody a better debator.A topic that really is based on opinion, like gun control, healthcare, etc., I could probably argue against my own position.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

You got it!If this ever gets anywhere, I promise to be as irrational as possible in the threads.

I, for one, don't come here to "debate' in the formal sense. I know there are people who can debate both sides of any issues. That is not what am interested in. I am interested in defending the facts. I am interested in rational presentations of the evidence. I could never argue the other side of this debate, because it is based on lies, misrepresentations, ignorance and deceit.If I wanted to do that I would be a lawyer.No thanks. Not interested in this thread or any threads it might spawn.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I find this to be a rather thoughtful suggestion, but it seems to beg the question 'who wants to be an honest - or perhaps, effective debater? '. I am not convinced that the majority of posts found here or elsewhere on the interwebz are fueled by a motivating impulse naturally inclined to establish a more accurate and complete perception of reality. I may quicker agree the brevity fostered in most meassge board formats panders to ego via ridicule.Regardless, the idea you've posted in the OP is encouraging to me. Perhaps it can also serve as an indication of sorts in relation to those who are interested in understanding things more completely, as compared to those who simply want a soapbox to stand on while they recite their rhetoric.Personally speaking, after I made an earnest attempt to understand what it is variant yuhdeans, catholics and later versions of protesting christians actually believe(d), I found myself in a much more effective position when debating those who subscribe to fundamentalist levite theology.In my experience, to be able to debate from the position of a levite involved entering into the theological realm of the levite. However, this undertaking required acceptance of - not to be confused with adherence to, levite fundamentals as a valid concept; to 'believe' without subscription. This required me to resolve any preexisting hues of bitterness or resentment that such an opposing veiwpoint to my own may conjure.To be sure, coming to terms with and firmly grasping their theological tenets, as well as - if not more importantly, where the variant sects diverge from one another (theologically speaking), was perhaps the most useful and effective strategy I could have implemented in order to unravel so many apologies and make sense of what they have going on in their traditions.I think most will agree they are in a better position to educate others, if and when they're willing to be educated more completely themselves One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Great thinking Ringo. Anyone interested in redoing the 2nd Amend. debate from their opponents' position?JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

i'd be interested to read it, unfoutunately my opponets in that debate or so crazy i don't think i have it in me to debate from thier side.