The draft.

[Savannahmann]

15. Pfui.

A thought experiment? Nuts. It's a strawman argument plain and simple. It's as disingenuous as those who blame the victim for being raped. They say things like. "I'm not saying I support rape, but if you dress like that you're asking for it." I not only reject those arguments out of hand. I eschew them. I denigrate and mock those who make such asinine statements.

It has no place in any discussion. If you were really opposed, you would say something like this. Representative Rangel called for the Draft to fight ISIS. Obviously, Representative Rangel is wrong, and here's why.

Your technique is the way you can propose an idea, and argue in favor of it, but pretend that you are against it.

It's a stupid idea. I've outlined the reasons why above. The argument that it would have everyone put skin in the game is dumber than anything else. That it would get people engaged, yeah. The Democratic Party saw that in 1968 didn't they? Did it end the war? Not so much. The war was still going on during the next Presidential election.

It's not a thought experiment, it's advocacy while pretending not to advocate. It's the same stupid thing men do to women who have been victims of sexual assault. It's the same stupid thing whites do to justify abuse of Blacks. It's the same stupid thing that people were and are doing to Michael Brown. Well, he attacked the cop and got what he deserved.

It is a pitiful debate tactic. It is one I would recognize if we were debating as part of a project. Say we were two students studying how to debate, and one must take the asinine side of the issue. But on a message board where there is nothing to gain even a passing grade? Not even close.

It's like that jackass Sheriff who said the Deputy was perfectly right in arresting the woman who didn't want to go out with him, since she was "resisting". It is the worst possible debate tactic to use. Post a thought experiment justifying racism, or sexism. Well why don't you? I'll tell you why, because everyone would see through that as nothing more than thinly veiled advocacy too. But if I read it, I'd be happy to destroy those arguments as easily as I destroyed this one.