I was arguing for prison abolitionism (I am a prison abolitionist. I don't believe a civilized society should be locking other humans in cages for prolonged periods of time). My opponent immedietly went to the most severe example of a criminal:
>"What about pedophiles??? Would you not imprison a pedophile??"
I call out the loaded question
>Me: "That's a bit of a charged question don't you think?"
>Opp: "How is it a loaded question?"
>Me: "You're trying to get a little debate snippet that falsey paints me as sympathetic to pedophiles, and I'm not going to give you that"
>Opp: "So you're just not going to answer whether or not you'd let pedophiles walk free?"
>Me: "The question is too narrow to answer properly, it depends on the specifics of the case"
>Opp: "So you'd be ok with sometimes letting pedophiles walk free?"
>Me: "If they're an ACTUAL pedophile, like they raped a child, then we would just put them down, I would even be open to using painful execution methods on legitimate provable child rapists"
>Opp: "Oh so you're saying just kill them?"
>Me: "For those kinds of pedophiles yes. I wanted to be very specific because I wouldn't sweep all underage related crimes with the same brush."
>Opp: "What do you mean by that?"
>Me: "I certainly wouldn't execute somebody for a statutory related sexual offense"
>Opp: "What would their punishment be?"
>Me: "Idk, a slap on the wrist?"
>Opp: "So basically nothing?"
>Me: "I, like I believe most rational people, am willing to greatly distinguish between a child rapist who rapes little kids, and a man who, knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, sleeps with a 17 year old"
>Opp: "I am inclined to agree with that"
>Me: "I don't doubt you are, I just wanted to be as nuanced as possible with my terminology so no one can strawman by arguments. I don't think all criminals should be killed on the spot, it depends on the case, the point is to use more temporal punishments as an alternative to prison sentences.
I noticed the rest of the audience agreed as well. Normally redditors JUMP on someone the moment they distinguish between the two, but everyone seemed to be in relative agreement with my argument. No one accused me of being a secret pedophile or anything.
>"What about pedophiles??? Would you not imprison a pedophile??"
I call out the loaded question
>Me: "That's a bit of a charged question don't you think?"
>Opp: "How is it a loaded question?"
>Me: "You're trying to get a little debate snippet that falsey paints me as sympathetic to pedophiles, and I'm not going to give you that"
>Opp: "So you're just not going to answer whether or not you'd let pedophiles walk free?"
>Me: "The question is too narrow to answer properly, it depends on the specifics of the case"
>Opp: "So you'd be ok with sometimes letting pedophiles walk free?"
>Me: "If they're an ACTUAL pedophile, like they raped a child, then we would just put them down, I would even be open to using painful execution methods on legitimate provable child rapists"
>Opp: "Oh so you're saying just kill them?"
>Me: "For those kinds of pedophiles yes. I wanted to be very specific because I wouldn't sweep all underage related crimes with the same brush."
>Opp: "What do you mean by that?"
>Me: "I certainly wouldn't execute somebody for a statutory related sexual offense"
>Opp: "What would their punishment be?"
>Me: "Idk, a slap on the wrist?"
>Opp: "So basically nothing?"
>Me: "I, like I believe most rational people, am willing to greatly distinguish between a child rapist who rapes little kids, and a man who, knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, sleeps with a 17 year old"
>Opp: "I am inclined to agree with that"
>Me: "I don't doubt you are, I just wanted to be as nuanced as possible with my terminology so no one can strawman by arguments. I don't think all criminals should be killed on the spot, it depends on the case, the point is to use more temporal punishments as an alternative to prison sentences.
I noticed the rest of the audience agreed as well. Normally redditors JUMP on someone the moment they distinguish between the two, but everyone seemed to be in relative agreement with my argument. No one accused me of being a secret pedophile or anything.
