Your debate skills have grown dull Jow Forums! Time to clear up your act.
ITT we sharpen our argumentative skills by identifying the inconsistency, fallacy, or weakness in the post above and presenting a new scenario for the next user in line to analyze. Bonus points for refuting the argument well and providing a way to re-structure the argument such that it is stronger.
This does not need to be a position that you yourself hold, though I strongly encourage it to be so, as the consistent refinement of arguments is something that you should always be doing. However, doing this exercise with any argument is good practice.
for example:
>foreign immigration is nessassary to sustain the economy of a developed nation because, if left to their own devices, the original population of the country will begin to grow complacent to the point that they will actively avoid tasks needed to preserve society.
this statement is a false dichotomy as it misrepresents the situation as being a choice between decay and prosper based upon the selection of immigration policy.
a better way to state this would be
>the influx of immigrants into a developed nation is one of the most effective means to bolster the economy, by providing a crop of labor willing to work nearly any task and can help stave off some of the effects of societal lethargy.
and a good refutation could be
>immigration is an nessassary practice, as society will find a means to reduce the total required labor to perform tasks should the pool or workers be reduced to a certain level. this may take the form of technological innovation or the scaling back of the industry.
again, this doesn't need to be a point of view you agree with. just a logically consistent one.
let’s start off nice and easy.
>Abortion is not murder, and is therefore permissible, because there is no scientific way to determine if a fetus is living or not.
