As someone who has done a lot of debates where I received a topic and a side on that topic and was told to debate it with 20 minutes or prep, I can understand your point, but I also think that’s part of what makes debates like these invigorating. You’re not likely to get a really unbalanced topic in this tournament (I’ll tell you now, there is no right or wrong side on this one), and not having an established position on the topic is actually a huge benefit when you don’t know what side you’ll be placed on. So many of us have become so picky about our topics on here that we lose the opportunity to have debates like this that push us to dig into a new topic, but if you’re finding yourself BSing your way through your arguments, then maybe this is an issue with how you approach new topics. If you’re a blank slate on an issue, then dig into it until you feel confident you can argue your side. There’s plenty of material online for this topic, you just need to spend an hour or two investing yourself in that research.
Well, I haven’t kept up on this one, so if it does finish in the next couple of days, it might be a bit before I get the vote up, i.e. it almost certainly won’t be as fast of a turnaround as with Seldiora v. SupaDudz.
Sometimes, you really just have to dig in on a point you made your strongest. There's a lot more ink on the quality argument from you than their is from SupaDudz, and I think enough of what you put down in that first round is still going strong by the end that you really should have been leveraging it. It's not perfect, and you certainly wouldn't get the weight you started out with, but if you had emphasized how important the quality is compared with other points, you could theoretically have won on that point alone.
I won't slam you with statistics, but I am going to have a good deal of support for my arguments. I imagine we'll agree on these points, so it shouldn't be too intensive to research.
Ooh, an Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind debate! I’m all about this. I have to ask though: could we change it to “If erasing memory about a person was possible, on balance, it would cause more harm than good”? The way it’s phrased now sounds like I would have to defend a majority of the population doing this rather than the need for its usage in general.
I understand that you're posting to respond to christopher_best, but I would appreciate if you didn't add to your arguments here, and I'm seeing a little of that bleeding into how you're addressing him.
There wasn't much clash to this debate. Though there was engagement with opposing arguments from both sides, Con spends most of his rebuttal focused on severing links to potential or actual impacts from Pro (most of which Pro drops), and Pro mostly uses his rebuttal to mitigate points made by Con (much of which Con addresses, though the mitigation isn't very strong to begin with). As such, the outcome of this debate rests on how powerful the two arguments are by comparison.
Pro's argument largely boils down to a set of claims regarding how China did or could have caused/exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic. Largely, these points are conceded as accurate, with a few exceptions. I buy that China had the capacity to either prevent or stem the spread of the COVID-19 virus beyond its borders, and therefore that it was in the wrong. I'm not sure whether I buy that the WHO should also be culpable, though that is extra topical and therefore doesn't factor into my decision. Pro introduces several new arguments in his last round (release of the virus from a BSL4 lab in China, the forgiving the debt alternative advocacy, and the UN issuing sanctions against the WHO [which, once again, is extra topical anyway]), all of which I automatically disregard. That just leaves the main advocacy, which imposes a temporary banishment on China from the WTO until their debt is repaid, and the retributive justice framework. The former point isn't as clear as I'd like, as the continuously rising cost of the virus could turn the banishment permanent and I'm unclear that even a contrite China would be able to pay it off. That alone wouldn't be a problem, but Pro's argument seems plagued by a lot of uncertainties regarding how things would play out, each of which is exacerbated by Con's points. It's unclear that China would ever make efforts to pay this down and would not, instead, decide to instigate or further existing trade disputes, which are likely to substantially harm other economies. I'll get to those more on Con's case, but since Pro spends scant little time shoring up how these would play out and responding to Con's points, the only real benefit of his case is, essentially, not letting China get away with this unscathed. In that regard, I think his case succeeds. However, in order to get impact off of that, it has to be either net beneficial via economic impacts to other countries, or it has to prevent China from engaging in similar practices in the future. I'm not seeing support for either, and the latter is tenuous at best, especially considering that Pro is also railing against the one international body that may have the means to investigate and hold them to effective standards. It's a big "maybe" on the latter impact, which is not a good place to be.
Con's case, meanwhile, comes with a lot of warrants and evidence to support how this will play out. I could go through a lot of his case, though I'll just take the highlights. I buy that China will be more likely to retaliate than endeavor to pay off its imposed debt, drastically diminishing the global supply chain. This, along with losses of important antibiotics and rare earth minerals, does extensive damage to the US. What makes this point all the stronger is that it's linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, showcasing a present need for these materials, the absence of which would be deeply felt almost immediately. The possibility that alternatives could appear at some point, as suggested by Pro, is not a viable substitute for a present problem. Con also points to levers put in place by the WTO that would be removed by China's banishment, effectively untethering China from the means to prevent its engagement in IP theft, which would similarly damage economies worldwide with the strongest effects felt in US businesses. Con's point about autocratic regimes refusing to kowtow to unilateral sanctions also holds up well, showcasing that the harms that the US will feel will be felt more deeply than any harms the Chinese will receive. This meshes with his framework, which establishes that actual impacts are more important than hammering in a principle of retributive justice without any real world gains. While Con doesn't give me a clear means to put the screws to China, that's not really necessary based on this framework, and Pro doesn't address it.
I'm looking for solvency from Pro and I can’t find it. This may shame the Chinese into submission and I'm not seeing enough reason to buy that from Pro. Instead, I'm given plentiful reasons by Con to believe it will go horribly wrong. Pro wants me to ride on principle alone, but a) you have to defend your framework if that's what you're going for, b) I don't see how principle pays the bills during such a tenuous and dangerous time, and c) I need at least long term solvency on future pandemics, for which I get no support. Pro just isn't doing enough to shore up his case, and there's a massive amount against him. That leads me to vote Con.
I'm super tempted to take this. Any chance we could extend the posting period to 1 week? I don't plan on taking a week, but I'd like to ensure that I can make time if something comes up.
While I’m planning on posting closer to the deadline (partly because I want to make sure my argument includes more of the ever-evolving situation), I just wanted to check and see if you were OK with me posting earlier. I know it’s a week prep time regardless, but I’d hate to put you out by posting early one of these rounds. Just let me know if you need a delay on my posts any round.
You misunderstand me. I'm not disrespecting your vote. I'm not attacking you. I'm explaining what is missing from your analysis, and how you could go about fixing it. It's called constructive feedback, and it's very distinct from a personal attack. It's your choice if you decide to ignore me, but I'd rather that your vote was counted. At this rate, it won't be.
There's a difference between stating what points were made in the debate and actually analyzing them. The latter is what a voter is expected to do. You've got some analysis in that RFD, but it focuses entirely on what's missing in Pro's argument, which is a problem. You have to analyze the points he made, not just the points he didn't. Listing them off isn't analysis, hence this vote will likely be removed as well.
Finished reading through the debate, still puzzling out my thoughts on the matter. It's a fascinating read (not common among abortion debates I've read, so well done to both of you), not in the least because the points that will have the strongest influence on my decision are not what I thought they would be. Well, that's enough teasing for now. I'm going to chew over this for a bit longer before I come down on a decision, though I have a clear idea of what's going to make or break each side at this point, just not yet sure which side was broken.
Makes sense. I would generally restrict new material to constructive rounds, and that includes evidence. I know some people like to say that at least new evidence is fair game in the final round, but I'm personally not a fan.
Part of the reason I took this debate is because it’s evolving in real time. I think that’s going to hurt my opponent more than it does me, but we’ll have to see.
Can we change "is" to "has been"? I think it's important to cover how he has responded to COVID-19 over the course of the outbreak and not just how he's handling things right now.
If you want to shift to a discussion over whether or not the comparison is apt, or have a debate on our views on abortion in general, I suggest we take that out of the comments on this debate. We can set up a debate or have this discussion in the forums.
Alright, I’m done then. It’s clear that you care more about either the comparison or being right than you do about educating people because you won’t take any ownership over the responses you get to this comparison. I guess I mistook your aims with these debates. My apologies.
This is my last effort at explaining this. If it’s not clear after this, it never will be.
Your goal is education, correct? You want people to understand and engage with your points, including pro-choice people, correct? That’s your main aim? Well, telling people that their thinking is akin to Nazi rhetoric does not bring them to the table on those issues. It brings a lot of negativity aimed at the comparison, and practically no discussion of the topic you care so deeply about.
When I say that you’re not focused on what I’m saying, I mean that you are so engaged in the discussion of whether your comparison is apt that you’ve lost sight of your goal. Again, if your goal is to educate, you’re losing it by comparing the people you’re trying to engage with to Nazis. It can be 100% accurate, but that doesn’t make it a good tactic when you’re trying to educate. You keep foisting the blame for the antipathy that you face every time you make this comparison on pro-choice people, so let’s assume it is their fault for being unwilling to go beyond the comparison. You have the power to change that, and all it takes is not comparing pro-choice mentalities to Nazi mentalities. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if your goal is to be right and show off how right you are, keep doing what you’re doing. If your goal is to educate a group you view as intransigent and unwilling to listen, then the least you can do is take down one unnecessary part of your argument that you know clearly raises their hackles. They won’t be any more educated for hearing that they are like Nazis, but they are a lot more likely to engage with anything else in your argument if the comparison is not there.
This is not about comparisons to the Nazis being taboo. It’s not about a flaw in your logic. It’s about how other people perceive your points based on what’s included and what’s easiest to focus on. If you want to educate someone, you need to ensure that they’re hearing the points that matter most, and, forgive me if I’m wrong, I don’t think your Nazi comparison is your most important point. Throwing out red meat only keeps the attention on that red meat. You can blame everyone else for pointing that out, or you can just stop throwing out the red meat and put the focus on the substance of your arguments. It’s entirely up to you.
To be clear, I'm not providing my specific objections with the comparison here. If you want to discuss that, fine, but I want to finish this conversation first, so every attempt you're making to shift over to that discussion is only distracting from the matter at hand. And yet, you keep going back to your justifications for the comparison, which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how justified the comparison is, it matters that the comparison automatically turns anyone who is pro-choice off to reading the rest of your argument. I'm saying that your efforts to educate pro-choice people are, thus, hampered by presenting this argument. It's a very simple point, yet you can't seem to stay focused on it.
"I am saying the arguments presented by pro-choicers are fundamentally dehumanizing. Not all human beings are being treated equally under the law. Not all human beings are looked upon with worth. Not all human beings are given the most basic of all human rights, the right to life. Language is used to shape the culture to a negative view of the unborn human being."
This point, the one I just quoted, doesn't require any comparison to the Nazis to be impactful. It provides the same message you're trying to go with throughout your argument. And, to be clear, this language isn't hiding anything - it's straightforward and direct. Yet the very next sentence you use delves into the comparison to Nazis again, as though that somehow makes the point stronger. All that comparison does is draw attention to the comparison. It doesn't help your point, it doesn't elevate your impacts, it does nothing to improve your argument. It's interesting that you talk about hiding the issue when the use of the Nazi comparison basically does just that: hide the actual argument behind a comparison that incites strong negative emotional responses.
So, when you ask, "Do you think we would be having this discussion now if I did not use such a morally repulsive example?", I agree. You're exactly right: we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, we might be discussing the validity of your argument about dehumanization and examining whether pro-choice language actually feeds into it. I've had lots of really strong, substantive discussions with people on this site and elsewhere regarding that very topic, and I'll say straight up that I think some aspects of that argument are valid. Of course, we're not having that discussion because, instead, we're talking about the "morally repulsive example" you've provided. So, great, you've incited response... to your example. I don't think that's what you wanted. Maybe it is, in which case, keep doing what you're doing. I had thought you cared more about the substance of your argument rather than the comparison you're making.
I don't think the comparison to Nazis is required in order to make the points you're trying to make about the moral pitfalls of the pro-choice position (and, to be clear once again, I disagree that it's an apt comparison, though I'll spend the rest of this assuming that it is). To you, it appears to be the most direct and resonating way to address the issue, and while it does accomplish that basic task, what you're actually pushing people to do is engage with this point rather than engage with the basic issue at play here. This is just my perspective, but why not just say that the argument presented by pro-choice people is fundamentally dehumanizing without comparing that dehumanization to the mindsets that were the impetuses for the Holocaust? Why employ the comparison at all? If your goal is to get more people to listen to you, why not go with the most basic and fundamental explanation of your argument: it is wrong to dehumanize and kill any subset of the population, the unborn are a subset of the population, ergo it is wrong to dehumanize and kill the unborn. You don't have to compare mindsets to the Nazis to make that argument stick, and it doesn't come with the swastika-labeled baggage that the Nazis bring with them.
It's honestly really baffling to me how you keep responding to my comments. I'm not talking about myself personally, though I do think it's tasteless (not hurtful - I've seen this kind of rhetoric enough that it has very little effect on me personally). I've also acknowledged, multiple times, that I'm biased in my perspective. I don't know why you feel the need to keep pointing that out when I've clearly stated as much. I'm talking about how other people perceive these kinds of arguments, and I'm informing some of how they might perceive it with how I perceive it. Maybe your thought is that how I perceive it is problematic, but I think that gets to the heart of my whole point here: if I'm perceiving it this way, how many other people are doing the same when they read through your argument? You seem to think that my comment is somehow what's damaging incisive scrutiny of your arguments, when in reality, it has a lot more to do with the content of those very arguments.
You keep on reverting, again and again, back to your justifications. It's what you do because you want to feel right in your perspective. That's fine, and if your goal here was just to be right and show how right you are, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would simply disagree with you, and we'd part ways. It's when you talk about educating people that I take pause. And, much as you keep trying to address my point by addressing Ragnar's about Reductio ad Hitlerium, mine actually has very little to do with it. My point is that it distracts from your argument by drawing attention to it. You're likening the perspective of pro-choice people to Nazis because they are, as you've said multiple times now, using the same rhetoric to dehumanize subsets of the population. That argument, the choice that you're making to present it here, is actively working against you. And yes, people will see it as you essentially equating them to Nazis, largely because you're not employing much nuance in your argument and you're not making efforts to keep the two distinct in any other regard. That may not be your aim, but it's what people can see, will see, and have seen. It's not a risk. It's a certainty. And yes, I've seen pro-choice people use pretty awful language of the type your describing. I've got my issues with comparing it to Nazi rhetoric, but that, again, is a separate issue. If you want to have that debate, we can do it, but that's not the focus of this post or of any of the posts I've made on this debate.
And, just FYI, the red flag came up when we first discussed this privately via direct messaging (again, you might recall we had a really long discussion over this), and I've seen it come up on several debates since then. Seeing it repeated so many times made me feel the need to respond.
Look, we can keep going back and forth on the validity of the comparison for days (and, to be clear, I still very much disagree that this is a valid comparison), but that doesn't alter what I said in my OP or what I've continued saying all along. Again, even if I assume that the comparison between being pro-choice and being a Nazi is apt, there is no doubt that it also inflames people who are pro-choice to make the comparison. Saying that it's still accurate to make the comparison doesn't change the fact that people are automatically either turned away from discussing it with you by the tension it brings, or become so focused on the comparison that the substance of your argument effectively doesn't matter after reading it. And I'm telling you that this is working against your interest of educating and bringing attention to what's happening because the only people who are going to care about the substance of your argument are people who already agree with you. You're not educating by inciting the opposition to engage with this comparison rather than engage with the substance of the moral issue that you're trying to argue is most important.
It seems like your goal in this comment thread is to show that you are right, yet I've spent scant little time in this discussion challenging your basic claim. Contrary to your supposition, I'm not assuming I'm correct because I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not arguing that pro-choice is moral - seriously, read back through any of my comments. The only thing I'm arguing is that pro-choice people see the words "you're basically Hitler" and that has a strong negative effect on their willingness to read your other words. Much as you treat my OP as though it's some kind of treatise denouncing your argument as invalid, the only goal of posting it was to point out that you're going to have a very hard time connecting with any pro-choice audience. Maybe you don't care about connecting with that audience because you feel they're already aligned against you, but then I really just have to wonder whom it is you are trying to educate. Who's benefiting from reading these debates? Are you just trying to give pro-life people more fodder to use in their arguments, or are you really trying to engage with a group of people who you feel have it wrong? If it's the latter, then it is my suggestion that you change your tactics. You can choose to take that advice or leave it, but it's coming from someone who is trying his best to look at your points objectively and also knows how he and other pro-choice people perceive being effectively called a Nazi for their views. Your last line, in particular, is really odd to me. You want to know who and what influences pro-choice people? Then I'd suggest you do not start the conversation by equating their views with people who started and ran the Holocaust. That's not going to facilitate your or their understanding. That's going to tell them, like it tells me, that you care more about casting judgement on them than you do engaging with their views.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, take this or leave it. It's your choice whether or not you care about how people reading this perceive you and your arguments. Personally, I care a lot about how people read my arguments because I want them to read them fully. I want them to engage with the entirety of my points. If that's what you want, I can tell you straight up, this isn't helping.
It appears that what you're coming down on is that the forums are ineffective, but so are the debates, because you're encountering the same problems. This, what we're engaging in right now, is derailing. Discussing the validity of a vote or view on a given type of argument, rather than discussing the issue of abortion straight up, is derailing. I would say that this debate was also derailed since it became more about the reasons why you or your opponent won than the content of your arguments, so even before the focus was placed on the voting, you had this problem. So, if the forums and the debates have failed to bring about the kind of discussion you're looking for, I'm not sure why you're choosing to engage in either one.
I made clear that I have a problem with a particular point you're making. I also made clear (several times) that that would not prevent me from voting for you should the remainder of your arguments be successful or should you somehow explain why this point would factor without a meaningful response from your opponent. If you want to believe that I'm already so biased that there's no chance of my voting for you based on a single point about your comparisons of pro-choice mentalities to Naziism, that honestly just concerns me because it makes it sound like that argument is integral to your case. If it is, then yes, you're likely to encounter expansions on what I've said here in my vote and it's likely to play a big role in my decision. I would hope (and from what we've discussed before, I expect) to see something a little more thought out and interesting than this.
I think you're getting the wrong impression from my and Ragnar's statements regarding these comparisons. It's not just a matter of whether the comparison is to Nazis, though that's the low-hanging genocidal fruit and certainly makes it stand out more. There's a reason why this fallacy that Ragnar mentioned exists, and it goes beyond simple comparison to Nazis. The goal of the comparison isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities. Admittedly, the goal of any debate is to show that the other side is wrong, but this is clearly meant to inflame emotionally. You might believe wholeheartedly that the two are equivalent, or at least nearly so. I understand that, even if I very strongly disagree with it personally. I'm telling you, though, that using this kind of rhetoric in a debate isn't going to bring people to your side, nor is it going to make them consider your side more. It's an inherently polarizing comparison, and the only people who will read and consider it are those who already agree. You can call it true from your perspective all you want, but that doesn't change how it functions with your audience.
Look, if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice. You can assume all you want that it's pro-choice language that's causing the most harm, though I have disagreements on that as well. What concerns me with your points, and what I'm clearly having a hard time getting across, is that your language does nothing more than entrench the perceived divides between pro-life and pro-choice views. If every pro-choice individual is inherently Nazi-esque, then there's no point considering their argument rationally from your perspective, and since they think their perspective is moral, being told that they're basically all Hitler turns them off to any engagement with you. If you really want to have a rational discussion, starting with "yeah, but you're basically Hitler" doesn't do much to get the ball rolling. It's really good if you want to get people upset, but that's about it.
Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion. I don't know who those "gatekeepers" are, but I ascribe to my own views on the matter, and I know many others who feel differently as well. Yet your argument places us in the same camp as anyone who holds a pro-choice view, despite not using the language you find so odious. Another example of your attempts to stop rather than start conversation on this issue.
It doesn't seem to me like you'd like to engage on language and how we use it to designate the unborn, since you already seem quite decided on that issue and view anyone who wobbles or falls on a different perspective as reprehensible for their views. I think the question that you posed two posts earlier, "should abortion be legal?", is about far more than a moral issue, and my views on it largely fall off the moral spectrum entirely. I think there are numerous problems with making abortion illegal, and they're mostly practical. That being said, the moral debate is an interesting one, and it would be a lot easier to have a substantive, detailed examination of that topic if the comparison to Nazis didn't make it all the more polarizing.
First off, I don't agree that your position or your combative style necessarily preclude you from doing well in a debate on this subject. It's a difficult subject, it incites a lot of strong feelings, and people expect those debating these topics to be combative. You can be both combative and persuasive.
Second, if your goal is to drive the conversation, I'd suggest shifting to the forums. Engaging in large, researched debates like this invite people to pick a winner rather than contribute to the discussion and forward or challenge issues like those you're discussing. Maybe it's just because you don't think you're getting much reach working the forums, but this kind of debate is really only helping you find one person to have these conversations with, and it becomes more about winning the debate than it does about furthering the discussion.
Third, it seems pretty ironic to me that you're talking about the effects of language on perceptions of groups when your own language is doing exactly that in this context. Efforts to characterize the other side as "Hitler-like" inherently shut down discussions like the one you're trying to have, that's part of the reason these comparisons are problematic. Even when someone is willing to engage with you, it either starts from a place of greater antagonism, or it becomes a discussion of the methods you're using like this, rather than a discussion of language surrounding the lives of the unborn.
Fourth, I'm really not appreciating that you're speaking about those who are pro-choice as being relatively homogeneous in their views. I say "their" when I am pro-choice myself, and it has never been my goal to "cloak or disguise" the identity of the unborn. That being said, I have used the words "potential person" to describe them, and I feel that that position is entirely appropriate because it acknowledges uncertainty in our perception of the unborn rather than uncertainty of what they physically are. For that matter, I think questioning the point at which a life becomes unique, individual, or human is reasonable. Again, we've had this discussion at great length. I'm more than willing to concede that there are flaws in some of the arguments proposed by people who are pro-choice. The same is true of those who are pro-life. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice side has no reasonable points to make when it comes to issues like this, and if you want to engage with me and other pro-choice people on issues like this to better understand the logic we're employing, a good place to start is by acknowledging that we don't have to compare these positions to those espoused by the Nazis in order to find fault in them.
I'm not calling the argument fallacious. Comparisons to the Nazis are, occasionally, warranted. Nor am I arguing that you have a negative stance towards Jews. My concern is its usage in this instance and how it can be perceived. This isn't just about inherent bias, though when you're looking to get votes on a debate, that is something you have to concern yourself with. Rather, this is about inciting bias through your use of this comparison, which I think you are doing. I've seen and voted for several good pro-life arguments, and while I recognize that there are many pro-choice people who would vote against those people on principle alone, I think what leads me and others who are pro-choice to vote for these debaters is largely that they make a persuasive point that doesn't compare their deeply held beliefs to those held by the Nazis. Again, whether this is an apt comparison based on the language used by the pro-choice movement vs. Hitler is really irrelevant to the point I'm making now. It can be accurate to say this and still put you in a worse position to do so.
I will post a vote on this when I get the opportunity (there's a lot of time to do that, and comparatively little time for me to finish writing my dissertation), but I did want to quickly weigh in on the main issue being discussed.
We have discussed this at length previously, PGA2.0, and I've made clear to you that I'm not a big fan of the Hitler comparison. If we start by assuming that it's an apt comparison, I would still find fault with it, as it's basically calling out anyone who supports abortion as Nazi-esque. I know that the issue of abortion as a whole is incredibly polarizing, but if your goal is to earn votes for your side from those who are pro-choice, then you're not doing yourself any favors using this comparison. It may be unintentional, but it makes your argument sound like a rather strong indictment of being pro-choice rather than an attack on the mentalities used to justify it, even if it is done directly in reference to those mentalities. It's hard to get away from making a comparison like this feel personal because there are so many traits that get dragged along with the Nazi label and all of them are moral indictments.
To be clear, I don't think the comparison is apt, and I don't think you're pigeon-holed into using it, either. I can discuss that in more detail either with you personally or via my vote, but I have a lot of problems with the equivocation. Admittedly, I've only read part of this debate and you could have justified it better than when we discussed it before, but it's unlikely that you've managed to make the comparison compelling enough for me to agree with you. Perhaps that's my own bias leaking in (I am both pro-choice and a Jew, so I feel it strongly on both fronts), but I'm trying to just take a step back and analyze this on a purely logical basis, and I'm seeing numerous flaws even in the short paragraph justification you're providing here. We can discuss that much here in the comments, though I'd rather not provide specific analysis here before I've voted.
All this being said, I have not yet read through the whole debate and therefore have not decided whom I would vote for. These are just my two cents about the usage of a specific argument without examining the specific points made under it.
As someone who has done a lot of debates where I received a topic and a side on that topic and was told to debate it with 20 minutes or prep, I can understand your point, but I also think that’s part of what makes debates like these invigorating. You’re not likely to get a really unbalanced topic in this tournament (I’ll tell you now, there is no right or wrong side on this one), and not having an established position on the topic is actually a huge benefit when you don’t know what side you’ll be placed on. So many of us have become so picky about our topics on here that we lose the opportunity to have debates like this that push us to dig into a new topic, but if you’re finding yourself BSing your way through your arguments, then maybe this is an issue with how you approach new topics. If you’re a blank slate on an issue, then dig into it until you feel confident you can argue your side. There’s plenty of material online for this topic, you just need to spend an hour or two investing yourself in that research.
Well, I haven’t kept up on this one, so if it does finish in the next couple of days, it might be a bit before I get the vote up, i.e. it almost certainly won’t be as fast of a turnaround as with Seldiora v. SupaDudz.
Sometimes, you really just have to dig in on a point you made your strongest. There's a lot more ink on the quality argument from you than their is from SupaDudz, and I think enough of what you put down in that first round is still going strong by the end that you really should have been leveraging it. It's not perfect, and you certainly wouldn't get the weight you started out with, but if you had emphasized how important the quality is compared with other points, you could theoretically have won on that point alone.
Yep, RFD will likely go up today.
I mean, we could, but without putting it in the rules it would be largely up to the judges to decide regardless.
I won't slam you with statistics, but I am going to have a good deal of support for my arguments. I imagine we'll agree on these points, so it shouldn't be too intensive to research.
Looking forward to debating this!
Ooh, an Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind debate! I’m all about this. I have to ask though: could we change it to “If erasing memory about a person was possible, on balance, it would cause more harm than good”? The way it’s phrased now sounds like I would have to defend a majority of the population doing this rather than the need for its usage in general.
I’ll be interested to see where this goes, already have thoughts on that opening.
Speaking as a Jew who was working to defend Fascism, I was actually looking forward to this...
Planning to plug through this between today and tomorrow, should have the vote up in time.
Thank you for voting! It’s a long debate to read through and I appreciate your taking the time.
Very much appreciate your taking the time!
No worries. I don't want to win conduct for that.
I understand that you're posting to respond to christopher_best, but I would appreciate if you didn't add to your arguments here, and I'm seeing a little of that bleeding into how you're addressing him.
Understandable. There's a lot written here, so I wouldn't blame someone for being turned off to it. Still, hoping to get a vote or two.
I plan to bust out an RFD tonight. Not an easy debate to decide.
RFD, pt. 1:
There wasn't much clash to this debate. Though there was engagement with opposing arguments from both sides, Con spends most of his rebuttal focused on severing links to potential or actual impacts from Pro (most of which Pro drops), and Pro mostly uses his rebuttal to mitigate points made by Con (much of which Con addresses, though the mitigation isn't very strong to begin with). As such, the outcome of this debate rests on how powerful the two arguments are by comparison.
Pro's argument largely boils down to a set of claims regarding how China did or could have caused/exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic. Largely, these points are conceded as accurate, with a few exceptions. I buy that China had the capacity to either prevent or stem the spread of the COVID-19 virus beyond its borders, and therefore that it was in the wrong. I'm not sure whether I buy that the WHO should also be culpable, though that is extra topical and therefore doesn't factor into my decision. Pro introduces several new arguments in his last round (release of the virus from a BSL4 lab in China, the forgiving the debt alternative advocacy, and the UN issuing sanctions against the WHO [which, once again, is extra topical anyway]), all of which I automatically disregard. That just leaves the main advocacy, which imposes a temporary banishment on China from the WTO until their debt is repaid, and the retributive justice framework. The former point isn't as clear as I'd like, as the continuously rising cost of the virus could turn the banishment permanent and I'm unclear that even a contrite China would be able to pay it off. That alone wouldn't be a problem, but Pro's argument seems plagued by a lot of uncertainties regarding how things would play out, each of which is exacerbated by Con's points. It's unclear that China would ever make efforts to pay this down and would not, instead, decide to instigate or further existing trade disputes, which are likely to substantially harm other economies. I'll get to those more on Con's case, but since Pro spends scant little time shoring up how these would play out and responding to Con's points, the only real benefit of his case is, essentially, not letting China get away with this unscathed. In that regard, I think his case succeeds. However, in order to get impact off of that, it has to be either net beneficial via economic impacts to other countries, or it has to prevent China from engaging in similar practices in the future. I'm not seeing support for either, and the latter is tenuous at best, especially considering that Pro is also railing against the one international body that may have the means to investigate and hold them to effective standards. It's a big "maybe" on the latter impact, which is not a good place to be.
RFD, pt. 2:
Con's case, meanwhile, comes with a lot of warrants and evidence to support how this will play out. I could go through a lot of his case, though I'll just take the highlights. I buy that China will be more likely to retaliate than endeavor to pay off its imposed debt, drastically diminishing the global supply chain. This, along with losses of important antibiotics and rare earth minerals, does extensive damage to the US. What makes this point all the stronger is that it's linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, showcasing a present need for these materials, the absence of which would be deeply felt almost immediately. The possibility that alternatives could appear at some point, as suggested by Pro, is not a viable substitute for a present problem. Con also points to levers put in place by the WTO that would be removed by China's banishment, effectively untethering China from the means to prevent its engagement in IP theft, which would similarly damage economies worldwide with the strongest effects felt in US businesses. Con's point about autocratic regimes refusing to kowtow to unilateral sanctions also holds up well, showcasing that the harms that the US will feel will be felt more deeply than any harms the Chinese will receive. This meshes with his framework, which establishes that actual impacts are more important than hammering in a principle of retributive justice without any real world gains. While Con doesn't give me a clear means to put the screws to China, that's not really necessary based on this framework, and Pro doesn't address it.
I'm looking for solvency from Pro and I can’t find it. This may shame the Chinese into submission and I'm not seeing enough reason to buy that from Pro. Instead, I'm given plentiful reasons by Con to believe it will go horribly wrong. Pro wants me to ride on principle alone, but a) you have to defend your framework if that's what you're going for, b) I don't see how principle pays the bills during such a tenuous and dangerous time, and c) I need at least long term solvency on future pandemics, for which I get no support. Pro just isn't doing enough to shore up his case, and there's a massive amount against him. That leads me to vote Con.
I will get a vote up on this that actually awards argument points. Be working on it this weekend.
A debate that has been accepted as this one has cannot be edited.
I’ll be watching this one. Good luck to both of you!
I'm super tempted to take this. Any chance we could extend the posting period to 1 week? I don't plan on taking a week, but I'd like to ensure that I can make time if something comes up.
I appreciate the RFD, it is certainly thorough! Thanks!
:P Well done, btw! Enjoyed debating this.
Hey! No new arguments in the comments!
Cool, just checking :)
While I’m planning on posting closer to the deadline (partly because I want to make sure my argument includes more of the ever-evolving situation), I just wanted to check and see if you were OK with me posting earlier. I know it’s a week prep time regardless, but I’d hate to put you out by posting early one of these rounds. Just let me know if you need a delay on my posts any round.
You misunderstand me. I'm not disrespecting your vote. I'm not attacking you. I'm explaining what is missing from your analysis, and how you could go about fixing it. It's called constructive feedback, and it's very distinct from a personal attack. It's your choice if you decide to ignore me, but I'd rather that your vote was counted. At this rate, it won't be.
There's a difference between stating what points were made in the debate and actually analyzing them. The latter is what a voter is expected to do. You've got some analysis in that RFD, but it focuses entirely on what's missing in Pro's argument, which is a problem. You have to analyze the points he made, not just the points he didn't. Listing them off isn't analysis, hence this vote will likely be removed as well.
Finished reading through the debate, still puzzling out my thoughts on the matter. It's a fascinating read (not common among abortion debates I've read, so well done to both of you), not in the least because the points that will have the strongest influence on my decision are not what I thought they would be. Well, that's enough teasing for now. I'm going to chew over this for a bit longer before I come down on a decision, though I have a clear idea of what's going to make or break each side at this point, just not yet sure which side was broken.
Makes sense. I would generally restrict new material to constructive rounds, and that includes evidence. I know some people like to say that at least new evidence is fair game in the final round, but I'm personally not a fan.
Part of the reason I took this debate is because it’s evolving in real time. I think that’s going to hurt my opponent more than it does me, but we’ll have to see.
I do plan to get to this - thankfully, there's still plenty of time. I'll be reading through this shortly.
Same.
You're on.
Can we change "is" to "has been"? I think it's important to cover how he has responded to COVID-19 over the course of the outbreak and not just how he's handling things right now.
I’m sorry to hear about your sister. We can discuss the scope of the debate, though just note that justice won’t be the only issue on the table.
If you want to shift to a discussion over whether or not the comparison is apt, or have a debate on our views on abortion in general, I suggest we take that out of the comments on this debate. We can set up a debate or have this discussion in the forums.
Alright, I’m done then. It’s clear that you care more about either the comparison or being right than you do about educating people because you won’t take any ownership over the responses you get to this comparison. I guess I mistook your aims with these debates. My apologies.
This is my last effort at explaining this. If it’s not clear after this, it never will be.
Your goal is education, correct? You want people to understand and engage with your points, including pro-choice people, correct? That’s your main aim? Well, telling people that their thinking is akin to Nazi rhetoric does not bring them to the table on those issues. It brings a lot of negativity aimed at the comparison, and practically no discussion of the topic you care so deeply about.
When I say that you’re not focused on what I’m saying, I mean that you are so engaged in the discussion of whether your comparison is apt that you’ve lost sight of your goal. Again, if your goal is to educate, you’re losing it by comparing the people you’re trying to engage with to Nazis. It can be 100% accurate, but that doesn’t make it a good tactic when you’re trying to educate. You keep foisting the blame for the antipathy that you face every time you make this comparison on pro-choice people, so let’s assume it is their fault for being unwilling to go beyond the comparison. You have the power to change that, and all it takes is not comparing pro-choice mentalities to Nazi mentalities. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if your goal is to be right and show off how right you are, keep doing what you’re doing. If your goal is to educate a group you view as intransigent and unwilling to listen, then the least you can do is take down one unnecessary part of your argument that you know clearly raises their hackles. They won’t be any more educated for hearing that they are like Nazis, but they are a lot more likely to engage with anything else in your argument if the comparison is not there.
This is not about comparisons to the Nazis being taboo. It’s not about a flaw in your logic. It’s about how other people perceive your points based on what’s included and what’s easiest to focus on. If you want to educate someone, you need to ensure that they’re hearing the points that matter most, and, forgive me if I’m wrong, I don’t think your Nazi comparison is your most important point. Throwing out red meat only keeps the attention on that red meat. You can blame everyone else for pointing that out, or you can just stop throwing out the red meat and put the focus on the substance of your arguments. It’s entirely up to you.
To be clear, I'm not providing my specific objections with the comparison here. If you want to discuss that, fine, but I want to finish this conversation first, so every attempt you're making to shift over to that discussion is only distracting from the matter at hand. And yet, you keep going back to your justifications for the comparison, which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how justified the comparison is, it matters that the comparison automatically turns anyone who is pro-choice off to reading the rest of your argument. I'm saying that your efforts to educate pro-choice people are, thus, hampered by presenting this argument. It's a very simple point, yet you can't seem to stay focused on it.
"I am saying the arguments presented by pro-choicers are fundamentally dehumanizing. Not all human beings are being treated equally under the law. Not all human beings are looked upon with worth. Not all human beings are given the most basic of all human rights, the right to life. Language is used to shape the culture to a negative view of the unborn human being."
This point, the one I just quoted, doesn't require any comparison to the Nazis to be impactful. It provides the same message you're trying to go with throughout your argument. And, to be clear, this language isn't hiding anything - it's straightforward and direct. Yet the very next sentence you use delves into the comparison to Nazis again, as though that somehow makes the point stronger. All that comparison does is draw attention to the comparison. It doesn't help your point, it doesn't elevate your impacts, it does nothing to improve your argument. It's interesting that you talk about hiding the issue when the use of the Nazi comparison basically does just that: hide the actual argument behind a comparison that incites strong negative emotional responses.
So, when you ask, "Do you think we would be having this discussion now if I did not use such a morally repulsive example?", I agree. You're exactly right: we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, we might be discussing the validity of your argument about dehumanization and examining whether pro-choice language actually feeds into it. I've had lots of really strong, substantive discussions with people on this site and elsewhere regarding that very topic, and I'll say straight up that I think some aspects of that argument are valid. Of course, we're not having that discussion because, instead, we're talking about the "morally repulsive example" you've provided. So, great, you've incited response... to your example. I don't think that's what you wanted. Maybe it is, in which case, keep doing what you're doing. I had thought you cared more about the substance of your argument rather than the comparison you're making.
I don't think the comparison to Nazis is required in order to make the points you're trying to make about the moral pitfalls of the pro-choice position (and, to be clear once again, I disagree that it's an apt comparison, though I'll spend the rest of this assuming that it is). To you, it appears to be the most direct and resonating way to address the issue, and while it does accomplish that basic task, what you're actually pushing people to do is engage with this point rather than engage with the basic issue at play here. This is just my perspective, but why not just say that the argument presented by pro-choice people is fundamentally dehumanizing without comparing that dehumanization to the mindsets that were the impetuses for the Holocaust? Why employ the comparison at all? If your goal is to get more people to listen to you, why not go with the most basic and fundamental explanation of your argument: it is wrong to dehumanize and kill any subset of the population, the unborn are a subset of the population, ergo it is wrong to dehumanize and kill the unborn. You don't have to compare mindsets to the Nazis to make that argument stick, and it doesn't come with the swastika-labeled baggage that the Nazis bring with them.
It's honestly really baffling to me how you keep responding to my comments. I'm not talking about myself personally, though I do think it's tasteless (not hurtful - I've seen this kind of rhetoric enough that it has very little effect on me personally). I've also acknowledged, multiple times, that I'm biased in my perspective. I don't know why you feel the need to keep pointing that out when I've clearly stated as much. I'm talking about how other people perceive these kinds of arguments, and I'm informing some of how they might perceive it with how I perceive it. Maybe your thought is that how I perceive it is problematic, but I think that gets to the heart of my whole point here: if I'm perceiving it this way, how many other people are doing the same when they read through your argument? You seem to think that my comment is somehow what's damaging incisive scrutiny of your arguments, when in reality, it has a lot more to do with the content of those very arguments.
You keep on reverting, again and again, back to your justifications. It's what you do because you want to feel right in your perspective. That's fine, and if your goal here was just to be right and show how right you are, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would simply disagree with you, and we'd part ways. It's when you talk about educating people that I take pause. And, much as you keep trying to address my point by addressing Ragnar's about Reductio ad Hitlerium, mine actually has very little to do with it. My point is that it distracts from your argument by drawing attention to it. You're likening the perspective of pro-choice people to Nazis because they are, as you've said multiple times now, using the same rhetoric to dehumanize subsets of the population. That argument, the choice that you're making to present it here, is actively working against you. And yes, people will see it as you essentially equating them to Nazis, largely because you're not employing much nuance in your argument and you're not making efforts to keep the two distinct in any other regard. That may not be your aim, but it's what people can see, will see, and have seen. It's not a risk. It's a certainty. And yes, I've seen pro-choice people use pretty awful language of the type your describing. I've got my issues with comparing it to Nazi rhetoric, but that, again, is a separate issue. If you want to have that debate, we can do it, but that's not the focus of this post or of any of the posts I've made on this debate.
And, just FYI, the red flag came up when we first discussed this privately via direct messaging (again, you might recall we had a really long discussion over this), and I've seen it come up on several debates since then. Seeing it repeated so many times made me feel the need to respond.
Look, we can keep going back and forth on the validity of the comparison for days (and, to be clear, I still very much disagree that this is a valid comparison), but that doesn't alter what I said in my OP or what I've continued saying all along. Again, even if I assume that the comparison between being pro-choice and being a Nazi is apt, there is no doubt that it also inflames people who are pro-choice to make the comparison. Saying that it's still accurate to make the comparison doesn't change the fact that people are automatically either turned away from discussing it with you by the tension it brings, or become so focused on the comparison that the substance of your argument effectively doesn't matter after reading it. And I'm telling you that this is working against your interest of educating and bringing attention to what's happening because the only people who are going to care about the substance of your argument are people who already agree with you. You're not educating by inciting the opposition to engage with this comparison rather than engage with the substance of the moral issue that you're trying to argue is most important.
It seems like your goal in this comment thread is to show that you are right, yet I've spent scant little time in this discussion challenging your basic claim. Contrary to your supposition, I'm not assuming I'm correct because I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not arguing that pro-choice is moral - seriously, read back through any of my comments. The only thing I'm arguing is that pro-choice people see the words "you're basically Hitler" and that has a strong negative effect on their willingness to read your other words. Much as you treat my OP as though it's some kind of treatise denouncing your argument as invalid, the only goal of posting it was to point out that you're going to have a very hard time connecting with any pro-choice audience. Maybe you don't care about connecting with that audience because you feel they're already aligned against you, but then I really just have to wonder whom it is you are trying to educate. Who's benefiting from reading these debates? Are you just trying to give pro-life people more fodder to use in their arguments, or are you really trying to engage with a group of people who you feel have it wrong? If it's the latter, then it is my suggestion that you change your tactics. You can choose to take that advice or leave it, but it's coming from someone who is trying his best to look at your points objectively and also knows how he and other pro-choice people perceive being effectively called a Nazi for their views. Your last line, in particular, is really odd to me. You want to know who and what influences pro-choice people? Then I'd suggest you do not start the conversation by equating their views with people who started and ran the Holocaust. That's not going to facilitate your or their understanding. That's going to tell them, like it tells me, that you care more about casting judgement on them than you do engaging with their views.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, take this or leave it. It's your choice whether or not you care about how people reading this perceive you and your arguments. Personally, I care a lot about how people read my arguments because I want them to read them fully. I want them to engage with the entirety of my points. If that's what you want, I can tell you straight up, this isn't helping.
It appears that what you're coming down on is that the forums are ineffective, but so are the debates, because you're encountering the same problems. This, what we're engaging in right now, is derailing. Discussing the validity of a vote or view on a given type of argument, rather than discussing the issue of abortion straight up, is derailing. I would say that this debate was also derailed since it became more about the reasons why you or your opponent won than the content of your arguments, so even before the focus was placed on the voting, you had this problem. So, if the forums and the debates have failed to bring about the kind of discussion you're looking for, I'm not sure why you're choosing to engage in either one.
I made clear that I have a problem with a particular point you're making. I also made clear (several times) that that would not prevent me from voting for you should the remainder of your arguments be successful or should you somehow explain why this point would factor without a meaningful response from your opponent. If you want to believe that I'm already so biased that there's no chance of my voting for you based on a single point about your comparisons of pro-choice mentalities to Naziism, that honestly just concerns me because it makes it sound like that argument is integral to your case. If it is, then yes, you're likely to encounter expansions on what I've said here in my vote and it's likely to play a big role in my decision. I would hope (and from what we've discussed before, I expect) to see something a little more thought out and interesting than this.
I think you're getting the wrong impression from my and Ragnar's statements regarding these comparisons. It's not just a matter of whether the comparison is to Nazis, though that's the low-hanging genocidal fruit and certainly makes it stand out more. There's a reason why this fallacy that Ragnar mentioned exists, and it goes beyond simple comparison to Nazis. The goal of the comparison isn't simply to show that the two are similar, it's to malign one party who would otherwise be considered relatively normal by comparing them to another party that has committed clear and outright atrocities. Admittedly, the goal of any debate is to show that the other side is wrong, but this is clearly meant to inflame emotionally. You might believe wholeheartedly that the two are equivalent, or at least nearly so. I understand that, even if I very strongly disagree with it personally. I'm telling you, though, that using this kind of rhetoric in a debate isn't going to bring people to your side, nor is it going to make them consider your side more. It's an inherently polarizing comparison, and the only people who will read and consider it are those who already agree. You can call it true from your perspective all you want, but that doesn't change how it functions with your audience.
Look, if you want to keep assuming how correct you are with your whole argument in response to what I'm saying, that's your choice. You can assume all you want that it's pro-choice language that's causing the most harm, though I have disagreements on that as well. What concerns me with your points, and what I'm clearly having a hard time getting across, is that your language does nothing more than entrench the perceived divides between pro-life and pro-choice views. If every pro-choice individual is inherently Nazi-esque, then there's no point considering their argument rationally from your perspective, and since they think their perspective is moral, being told that they're basically all Hitler turns them off to any engagement with you. If you really want to have a rational discussion, starting with "yeah, but you're basically Hitler" doesn't do much to get the ball rolling. It's really good if you want to get people upset, but that's about it.
Showing me examples of people using the language you're discussing doesn't make your perspective on all of pro-choice thought correct. It certainly doesn't validate you painting with such a broad brush as you have here and in our previous discussion. I don't know who those "gatekeepers" are, but I ascribe to my own views on the matter, and I know many others who feel differently as well. Yet your argument places us in the same camp as anyone who holds a pro-choice view, despite not using the language you find so odious. Another example of your attempts to stop rather than start conversation on this issue.
It doesn't seem to me like you'd like to engage on language and how we use it to designate the unborn, since you already seem quite decided on that issue and view anyone who wobbles or falls on a different perspective as reprehensible for their views. I think the question that you posed two posts earlier, "should abortion be legal?", is about far more than a moral issue, and my views on it largely fall off the moral spectrum entirely. I think there are numerous problems with making abortion illegal, and they're mostly practical. That being said, the moral debate is an interesting one, and it would be a lot easier to have a substantive, detailed examination of that topic if the comparison to Nazis didn't make it all the more polarizing.
First off, I don't agree that your position or your combative style necessarily preclude you from doing well in a debate on this subject. It's a difficult subject, it incites a lot of strong feelings, and people expect those debating these topics to be combative. You can be both combative and persuasive.
Second, if your goal is to drive the conversation, I'd suggest shifting to the forums. Engaging in large, researched debates like this invite people to pick a winner rather than contribute to the discussion and forward or challenge issues like those you're discussing. Maybe it's just because you don't think you're getting much reach working the forums, but this kind of debate is really only helping you find one person to have these conversations with, and it becomes more about winning the debate than it does about furthering the discussion.
Third, it seems pretty ironic to me that you're talking about the effects of language on perceptions of groups when your own language is doing exactly that in this context. Efforts to characterize the other side as "Hitler-like" inherently shut down discussions like the one you're trying to have, that's part of the reason these comparisons are problematic. Even when someone is willing to engage with you, it either starts from a place of greater antagonism, or it becomes a discussion of the methods you're using like this, rather than a discussion of language surrounding the lives of the unborn.
Fourth, I'm really not appreciating that you're speaking about those who are pro-choice as being relatively homogeneous in their views. I say "their" when I am pro-choice myself, and it has never been my goal to "cloak or disguise" the identity of the unborn. That being said, I have used the words "potential person" to describe them, and I feel that that position is entirely appropriate because it acknowledges uncertainty in our perception of the unborn rather than uncertainty of what they physically are. For that matter, I think questioning the point at which a life becomes unique, individual, or human is reasonable. Again, we've had this discussion at great length. I'm more than willing to concede that there are flaws in some of the arguments proposed by people who are pro-choice. The same is true of those who are pro-life. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice side has no reasonable points to make when it comes to issues like this, and if you want to engage with me and other pro-choice people on issues like this to better understand the logic we're employing, a good place to start is by acknowledging that we don't have to compare these positions to those espoused by the Nazis in order to find fault in them.
I'm not calling the argument fallacious. Comparisons to the Nazis are, occasionally, warranted. Nor am I arguing that you have a negative stance towards Jews. My concern is its usage in this instance and how it can be perceived. This isn't just about inherent bias, though when you're looking to get votes on a debate, that is something you have to concern yourself with. Rather, this is about inciting bias through your use of this comparison, which I think you are doing. I've seen and voted for several good pro-life arguments, and while I recognize that there are many pro-choice people who would vote against those people on principle alone, I think what leads me and others who are pro-choice to vote for these debaters is largely that they make a persuasive point that doesn't compare their deeply held beliefs to those held by the Nazis. Again, whether this is an apt comparison based on the language used by the pro-choice movement vs. Hitler is really irrelevant to the point I'm making now. It can be accurate to say this and still put you in a worse position to do so.
I will post a vote on this when I get the opportunity (there's a lot of time to do that, and comparatively little time for me to finish writing my dissertation), but I did want to quickly weigh in on the main issue being discussed.
We have discussed this at length previously, PGA2.0, and I've made clear to you that I'm not a big fan of the Hitler comparison. If we start by assuming that it's an apt comparison, I would still find fault with it, as it's basically calling out anyone who supports abortion as Nazi-esque. I know that the issue of abortion as a whole is incredibly polarizing, but if your goal is to earn votes for your side from those who are pro-choice, then you're not doing yourself any favors using this comparison. It may be unintentional, but it makes your argument sound like a rather strong indictment of being pro-choice rather than an attack on the mentalities used to justify it, even if it is done directly in reference to those mentalities. It's hard to get away from making a comparison like this feel personal because there are so many traits that get dragged along with the Nazi label and all of them are moral indictments.
To be clear, I don't think the comparison is apt, and I don't think you're pigeon-holed into using it, either. I can discuss that in more detail either with you personally or via my vote, but I have a lot of problems with the equivocation. Admittedly, I've only read part of this debate and you could have justified it better than when we discussed it before, but it's unlikely that you've managed to make the comparison compelling enough for me to agree with you. Perhaps that's my own bias leaking in (I am both pro-choice and a Jew, so I feel it strongly on both fronts), but I'm trying to just take a step back and analyze this on a purely logical basis, and I'm seeing numerous flaws even in the short paragraph justification you're providing here. We can discuss that much here in the comments, though I'd rather not provide specific analysis here before I've voted.
All this being said, I have not yet read through the whole debate and therefore have not decided whom I would vote for. These are just my two cents about the usage of a specific argument without examining the specific points made under it.