Comments on EvidenceOfGod/Haven head-to-head debate

[otseng]

This thread is for comments on the head-to-head debate between EvidenceOfGod and Haven.

Does a woman's right to bodily autonomy justify abortion?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to Haven]

Good for you Haven for having the debate, I think it takes a lot of guts to get up there and put together an argument. Not to mention all the other demands on your time.

This is a topic that is very important to me I followed the debate with interest and I learned some new things.

[Hamsaka]

Personally, I think it could have gone better for me (I was distracted by the pre-semester rush [planning classes, creating syllabi, trying to make progress on my dissertation, etc.]). I didn't have as much time to devote to it as I would have liked, and I think that shows in a few of my posts.

My advice to anyone else is to avoid focusing too much on refuting your opponent. Make your own arguments and provide the best possible defense for them. Let your opponent say whatever she wants, and address her central points when you can, but keep the overall focus on your own case. I feel like in this past debate I spent too much time focusing on Clinton's arguments and not enough building my own.

Someday I'd like to do a head to head, so I followed this one and thought about the technique angle as well as the content.

When you say you think you should have spent less effort refuting your opponent, I'm curious as to how one would draw that 'line'. It seems important to not leave a claim unaddressed, but I can see how addressing each and every one is problematic.

The nature of religious debate is that there are almost innumerable claims, one after the other, stated without support, and going in ten different directions. I've watched several WLC debates, and he's quick to point out how his opponent neglects to refute this or that point. In his debate with Sam Harris about morality, Harris does what you, Haven, state you wish you'd done. He spent little time refuting WLC's multiple unsupported claims, and just presented his arguments.

Maybe I just don't understand enough about formal debate. And being accused of 'ignoring' and perhaps passively ceding by NOT refuting every unsupported claim isn't a good reason to address every single claim.

I'm thinking of the "Gish Gallop" . His opponents were buried beneath so many unsupported truth claims they couldn't address them all and stay within time parameters. It's a strategy often used in Creationist websites, to provide "101 Reasons Jesus was not a Myth" as if the sheer number of bullet points enriched the evidence.

The only issue I had with your presentation was the use of "ZEF", it just sounded wrong, a kind of uber-rational straw man (but only at first glance). I'm pretty sure it's more of a personal reaction than one I could justify otherwise.

I liked how you pointed out EoG's unspoken reliance on 'essentialism' to support some of his points. I didn't know what to call it when essentialism sneaked into arguments, I just knew there was something 'wrong' with them that I couldn't name.

You were able to draw out some specific rational support for the issue of bodily autonomy that I'd not thought of or heard yet.

It's a very difficult issue to work with in an unsentimental way; avoiding either extreme.

As a young girl who found herself pregnant at age 17, what I realized lurked in my uterus DID feel very unwanted and unwelcome, a huge life shattering imposition. At that age, it was shame and fear of what my parents and classmates would think of me, and this little thing making me puke until 3pm every day felt exactly like a parasite. For about four weeks Even putting this into words is heart rending, as this little ZEF will be 32 this week and in spite of precarious beginnings and lots of soul searching, was anticipated and welcomed by all (even the ones I most feared to tell ).

Anyway, you got it 'right' about that, as well as the harsh and UNsentimental reality that unwanted pregnancy puts on the pregnant individual. In terms of social policy, we can't indulge sentimentality because of the direct and obvious consequences of banning abortion. Thanks for taking on the much more difficult 'side' of this debate.

[OpenYourEyes]

...
My advice to anyone else is to avoid focusing too much on refuting your opponent. Make your own arguments and provide the best possible defense for them. Let your opponent say whatever she wants, and address her central points when you can, but keep the overall focus on your own case. I feel like in this past debate I spent too much time focusing on Clinton's arguments and not enough building my own.

I believe one way to help avoid the situation you bring up is to only debate one position, and that would be debating about only the affirmative side or only the negative side. In your debate there were 2 positions on the table, arguments for abortion and a whole set of other arguments against abortion. Had the debate just been about your position, the affirmative side and your arguments, you wouldve had the oppotunity to expand on your argument as the focus would just be on your position.

I thought the debate was good however.

[Lion IRC]

I think EvidenceOfGod unsettled Haven's strategy by deliberately confining himself to secular, non-religious arguments.

Whereas Haven's opening summarised the debate as revolving around either;
1. Religious arguments
or
2. Personhood (legalistic)

I wonder, Haven, if you mistakenly expected EvidenceOfGod to introduce, perhaps 50% of his arguments, based on religion and when they didn't appear, found yourself mostly limited to a more clinical case which necessarily 'dehumanises' the so-called ZEF as an unwanted parasite which doesn't feel pain.

For example, in post #6 you appeared frustrated by Clinton's use of the term "natural reason" and mutual rights.
He said;
"...If I want my rights respected, I have to respect the rights of others. It is the rational nature which grounds our rights because the rational nature is what allows us to recognize right from wrong and act accordingly."

...which, to me, seemed like a wholly secular and noble post-enlightenment value.

Yet you seemed intent on trying to turn it into a religious argument.
(Well that's my impression anyway FWIW)

Also, I think that tactically it was a mistake for you to even introduce the matter of fetal pain sensation. I realise you did so to preempt your opponent with the assertion that 'they' don't feel pain but I think it's one area of the broader debate in which the more people think about it, the more uncomfortable they get.

Typically, abortion-on-demand advocates steer away from THAT topic wherever possible in my experience. It's a complete 'no-win' as far as I can tell.

...unless you are referring to the fact that abortion clinics offer (optional) fetal anaesthesia. In which case I suppose you could theoretically claim they don't feel pain.

...unless of course the mother declines the option for whatever reason.

[Hamsaka]

...
My advice to anyone else is to avoid focusing too much on refuting your opponent. Make your own arguments and provide the best possible defense for them. Let your opponent say whatever she wants, and address her central points when you can, but keep the overall focus on your own case. I feel like in this past debate I spent too much time focusing on Clinton's arguments and not enough building my own.

I believe one way to help avoid the situation you bring up is to only debate one position, and that would be debating about only the affirmative side or only the negative side. In your debate there were 2 positions on the table, arguments for abortion and a whole set of other arguments against abortion. Had the debate just been about your position, the affirmative side and your arguments, you wouldve had the oppotunity to expand on your argument as the focus would just be on your position.

I thought the debate was good however.

Aha, I'm beginning to understand your posting behavior in the Science and Religion forum. I can see your point, and agree in principle.

Except it's not like that in reality, and in some of your responses to members you refused to acknowledge relevant co-issues for the sake of one specific point. I think you shoot yourself in the foot because there will always be co-issues that impact the flow of the debate.

The idea is to keep the co-issues as streamlined as possible, as few as possible.

In the case of the Science and Religion threads, the co-issues brought up by myself, Clownboat and Bust Nak were challenging to maintaining your position, and basically, it's nonsense to debate what isn't there (the specific evidence you demanded). Why do you need that degree of exacting, absolute biologic justification? That's not even the point of doing the research that is being done. Hypotheses are open questions, not hunting and pecking for what will support a preferred position.

Anyway, keeping things as simple and streamlined as possible in a debate is important. It renders the debate nonsensical, though, when you try to 'control' the data and it's relationships to other data, relationships that matter for the sake of knowledge.

[Hamsaka]

I think EvidenceOfGod unsettled Haven's strategy by deliberately confining himself to secular, non-religious arguments.

Whereas Haven's opening summarised the debate as revolving around either;
1. Religious arguments
or
2. Personhood (legalistic)

I wonder, Haven, if you mistakenly expected EvidenceOfGod to introduce, perhaps 50% of his arguments, based on religion and when they didn't appear, found yourself mostly limited to a more clinical case which necessarily 'dehumanises' the so-called ZEF as an unwanted parasite which doesn't feel pain.

For example, in post #6 you appeared frustrated by Clinton's use of the term "natural reason" and mutual rights.
He said;
"...If I want my rights respected, I have to respect the rights of others. It is the rational nature which grounds our rights because the rational nature is what allows us to recognize right from wrong and act accordingly."

...which, to me, seemed like a wholly secular and noble post-enlightenment value.

Yet you seemed intent on trying to turn it into a religious argument.
(Well that's my impression anyway FWIW)

Also, I think that tactically it was a mistake for you to even introduce the matter of fetal pain sensation. I realise you did so to preempt your opponent with the assertion that 'they' don't feel pain but I think it's one area of the broader debate in which the more people think about it, the more uncomfortable they get.

Typically, abortion-on-demand advocates steer away from THAT topic wherever possible in my experience. It's a complete 'no-win' as far as I can tell.

...unless you are referring to the fact that abortion clinics offer (optional) fetal anaesthesia. In which case I suppose you could theoretically claim they don't feel pain.

...unless of course the mother declines the option for whatever reason.

The only position 'against' abortion being an issue of a person's bodily integrity is religious. You can parse and compartmentalize the issue into a bazillion little pieces but then all you have is confetti trying to disguise an argument from religion.

[EvidenceOfGod]

I think EvidenceOfGod unsettled Haven's strategy by deliberately confining himself to secular, non-religious arguments.

Whereas Haven's opening summarised the debate as revolving around either;
1. Religious arguments
or
2. Personhood (legalistic)

I wonder, Haven, if you mistakenly expected EvidenceOfGod to introduce, perhaps 50% of his arguments, based on religion and when they didn't appear, found yourself mostly limited to a more clinical case which necessarily 'dehumanises' the so-called ZEF as an unwanted parasite which doesn't feel pain.

For example, in post #6 you appeared frustrated by Clinton's use of the term "natural reason" and mutual rights.
He said;
"...If I want my rights respected, I have to respect the rights of others. It is the rational nature which grounds our rights because the rational nature is what allows us to recognize right from wrong and act accordingly."

...which, to me, seemed like a wholly secular and noble post-enlightenment value.

Yet you seemed intent on trying to turn it into a religious argument.
(Well that's my impression anyway FWIW)

Also, I think that tactically it was a mistake for you to even introduce the matter of fetal pain sensation. I realise you did so to preempt your opponent with the assertion that 'they' don't feel pain but I think it's one area of the broader debate in which the more people think about it, the more uncomfortable they get.

Typically, abortion-on-demand advocates steer away from THAT topic wherever possible in my experience. It's a complete 'no-win' as far as I can tell.

...unless you are referring to the fact that abortion clinics offer (optional) fetal anaesthesia. In which case I suppose you could theoretically claim they don't feel pain.

...unless of course the mother declines the option for whatever reason.

The only position 'against' abortion being an issue of a person's bodily integrity is religious. You can parse and compartmentalize the issue into a bazillion little pieces but then all you have is confetti trying to disguise an argument from religion.

Could you please point out which of my arguments were religious?

[Haven]

[Replying to post 17 by EvidenceOfGod]

I think they were all based on a religious foundation.

All of your arguments relied on the philosophical viewpoint of Aristotelian essentialism, which is religious in nature because it implies supernaturalism (not necessarily theism, although many theists use it to support their gods) and has no empirical support whatsoever (it can't have such support even in principle, because these 'essences' are inherently undetectable). Because of this, your arguments were indirectly religious.

[EvidenceOfGod]

[Replying to post 17 by EvidenceOfGod]

I think they were all based on a religious foundation.

All of your arguments relied on the philosophical viewpoint of Aristotelian essentialism, which is religious in nature because it implies supernaturalism (not necessarily theism, although many theists use it to support their gods) and has no empirical support whatsoever (it can't have such support even in principle, because these 'essences' are inherently undetectable). Because of this, your arguments were indirectly religious.

That's just a cop-out, though.

1) My arguments are not inherently religious, though I do think their truth shows undeniably that God exists. But these are arguments that atheists can recognize and accept.

2) Of course they have empirical support. I didn't go into it in the debate because it wasn't really the place, and I shouldn't have to do all the intellectual heavy lifting (if you can't present arguments against my point of view, then you can't rightly reject them in the course of the debate). To say they are inherently undetectable is simply false.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 19 by EvidenceOfGod]

Yes, as a formal debate it has to be judged on what was actually said, not projected suppositions about underlying motive.

Shadow boxing against a strawman.