# Bricker: This is not a good debating technique **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213 "2005-12-18T22:28:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Grits\_and\_Hard\_Toast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Grits\_and\_Hard\_Toast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grits_and_Hard_Toast)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/61 "2005-12-19T03:52:59Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > **Grits and Hard Toast** : Perhaps you should consider reframing your question in a way that invites a shorter, less ambiguous answer than ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Or repost it in bolded or extra large colored text or something, so it’s not quite so easy to overlook. Thanks Terrifel. I will try again. I tried to quote Bricker directly, but in doing so realized he was very careful with the way he phrased each comment. So I will go with the overall impression he leaves in that thread. Bricker’s point in that thread is that he believes that if something is immoral, it should also be illegal. He qualifies that with saying if something is found to be immoral by the majority of Americans, then it should be illegal. When several people in that thread questioned his sincerity of that belief, he insisted he wasn’t playing games, he truly meant what he was saying. And here he says that he stands by everything in that thread. Bricker, will you go on record here and state that you believe that if the majority of Americans feel “X” is immoral, then you would support making “X” illegal? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@The\_Hook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hook)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/62 "2005-12-19T03:56:27Z")
Because it has been deemed inappropiate to discuss this in the original thread, I will respond to it here: > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s your playground; of course you may do as you please. But if the merits of the situation are any defense, then I’d like you to explain to me how a post arguing that prostitution should be illegal, from me, can possibly be believed to be “arguing things \* don’t believe.” I _do_ believe it. But not for the reasons you’ve stated. In your responses to the mods you have dodged the issue by saying that you have always thought that prostitution is immoral and should be illegal. However, that’s now why you’re coming under fire and you know that. It is impossible to imagine you honestly thinking that an agreement of a majority over the morality of a specified issue decides wether it should be illegal or not. We all know what the thread really is about and the ways you’ve confronted this assertion are woven so that you don’t come off as totally dishonest. I don’t believe you, not because of what I think of you, but of what I’ve actually seen of you on these boards. You are, indeed, sir, better than this. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/63 "2005-12-19T04:04:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*John Mace \*\* > 3. I want to save your ass from being banned. Assuming he wants saving. He’s no fool and he’s loyal. Someone who fights tooth and nail over every little point like **Bricker** is going to end up pretty gummy defending the Bush administration over the next couple of years. Perhaps he’s looking for the “oppressed conservative” route out of here. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/64 "2005-12-19T04:44:22Z")
> [@hawthorne](#): > > Assuming he wants saving. He’s no fool and he’s loyal. Someone who fights tooth and nail over every little point like **Bricker** is going to end up pretty gummy defending the Bush administration over the next couple of years. Perhaps he’s looking for the “oppressed conservative” route out of here. That’s a good point. However, contrary to what appears to be popular perception, **Bricker** is not an unchangeable dyed-in-the-wool My-Bush-right-or-wrong conservative. I don’t quickly have a link to the post where he completely reversed himself on the subject of gay marriage, but it’s in a monumental pit thread on the subject. Quite simply, he was convinced by argument to change his mind, and he did. Which is one strong reason why I’m hoping **John Mace** ’s wise counsel sinks in. People like **Bricker** are scarce around here, and we need him, if for nothing else than to show up the fallacies that we’ve preconceived. (And he’s a lot more valuable than that, as a quick look in GQ over the past few weeks would show you.) ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/65 "2005-12-19T05:34:45Z")
Yeah, I know **Polycarp**. My point was that the combination of loyalty and not being a fool is probably going to be pretty testing. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/66 "2005-12-19T07:10:07Z")
> [@hawthorne](#): > > Assuming he wants saving. He’s no fool and he’s loyal. Someone who fights tooth and nail over every little point like **Bricker** is going to end up pretty gummy defending the Bush administration over the next couple of years. Perhaps he’s looking for the “oppressed conservative” route out of here. You have to remember that **Bricker** is a lawyer by profession. It’s his **job** to argue for a particular side and come up with a viable argument for his side even if the odds look grim. To see Bricker go off the deep end like he seems to be going lately is a testament to just how terrible the Bush Administration has been revealed to be. I’d hate to see him melt down in court like he has on this board. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/67 "2005-12-19T07:57:05Z")
**Bricker** , I am reminded of the former Doper [Manhattan](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318131). Revelling in dumping on **Scott Plaid** does seem out of character–particularly seeing the immense leaps he has accomplished in his posting style since his pitting.\* I would recommend taking a break for a bit, **Bricker** , and coming back. But, that’s just me. - I would still recommend **Scott** stay out of GD though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/68 "2005-12-19T13:22:32Z")
> [@Grits and Hard Toast](#): > > Bricker, will you go on record here and state that you believe that if the majority of Americans feel “X” is immoral, then you would support making “X” illegal? Unless something happens in that thread to convince me I was wrong, in which case I will of course change my mind. And, hey look! Something did in fact happen. The aggregate weight of the arguments presented did in fact persuade me that the position I was advancing was untenable. So I abandon it, and in that thread I’m now seeking to explore just what the criteria for making a criminal law should be, since it’s not simply and solely the majority feeling that ‘X’ is immoral. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/69 "2005-12-19T13:29:31Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > **Bricker** , I am reminded of the former Doper [Manhattan](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318131). Me too. Perhaps if we did a better job at making the members of the idiot left unwelcome (say, as good as we do with the idiot right), the more thoughtful conservative members wouldn’t keep having meltdowns. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/70 "2005-12-19T13:32:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Unless something happens in that thread to convince me I was wrong, in which case I will of course change my mind. > > And, hey look! Something did in fact happen. The aggregate weight of the arguments presented did in fact persuade me that the position I was advancing was untenable. So I abandon it, and in that thread I’m now seeking to explore just what the criteria for making a criminal law should be, since it’s not simply and solely the majority feeling that ‘X’ is immoral. Far be it for me to question your amazing change of heart in the other thread, but, as I said before, I still believe you are full of shit. The position you were advancing was not only untenable, it was one that you had previously rejected as improper, not only in the one example I have already cited, but throughout your posting history. But that’s just my opinion, and no one can truly know another’s heart. You’re the one who has to live with yourself. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/71 "2005-12-19T13:45:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _Blalron_ > You have to remember that Bricker is a lawyer by profession. It’s his job to argue for a particular side and come up with a viable argument for his side even if the odds look grim. That thought was lurking behind my post #45 on the first page, where I mention “mere advocacy”. My wife’s a barrister. It always weirds me out a bit, the night before an appearance when she’s rehearsing playing a bad hand. And sometimes she wins with a terrible case. That’s the gig. But _this is not the only way she argues_. When she is asked advice on a course of action - or a cause of action - she argues what she reckons would be found, not what she would argue should be found. When she updates her loose-leaf service in her area or annotates the reports or advises the Minister – she does not argue as an advocate for a particular interest. As an advocate, she’s perfectly happy to have the other side’s case destroyed by bad service or ill-proclaimed subordinate legislation or groundwater overlays drawn in the wrong colour pen. But when it comes down to discussing policy, drafting regulations or advising on ministerial conduct, “might one get away with this shabby shit if ably represented?” is not the job. I understand and respect that **Bricker** has deeply-held beliefs that are different from mine. A big part of the reason I come here is to read the posts of people with whom I disagree. But mere advocacy is not a good debating technique. [I see in preview, Bricker has posted here. That he seems to have been taken somewhat aback by Gaudere’s Hawaii post is something, I guess.] ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/72 "2005-12-19T13:46:06Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > I would still recommend Scott stay out of GD though. Yes, because my points in the thread that spawned this were so easy to refute. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/73 "2005-12-19T14:54:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Far be it for me to question your amazing change of heart in the other thread, but, as I said before, I still believe you are full of shit. The position you were advancing was not only untenable, it was one that you had previously rejected as improper, not only in the one example I have already cited, but throughout your posting history. > > But that’s just my opinion, and no one can truly know another’s heart. You’re the one who has to live with yourself. I distinguished the post you mention. In that earlier post, I acknowledged that _religiously-based_ morality should not form the basis of criminal law. In the instant case, I’m arguing (or was arguing) that morality formed by _public opinion_ should form the basis of criminal law. Very different. Clearly the US, governed by the First Amendment, cannot look to religion to guide the law. But as a representative democracy, I thought it was arguable that we could look to the populace’s views of morality as a guide. Now I see that that, too, is apparently untenable (I reserve final judgement until that thread plays out; my concession may have been premature. We’ll see.) In any event, I’ll live with myself just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/74 "2005-12-19T14:58:26Z")
To answer the cheating spouse question in more detail: 1. I think there should be no constitutional bar to such laws. 2. I think they are unwise public policy. While they do represent the criminalization of a moral wrong, the moral wrong is one in which the damage is generally limited to a single marriage. Prostitution, in contrast, has a huge fallout of collateral damage, and does damage to society as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/75 "2005-12-19T15:10:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I distinguished the post you mention. In that earlier post, I acknowledged that _religiously-based_ morality should not form the basis of criminal law. In the instant case, I’m arguing (or was arguing) that morality formed by _public opinion_ should form the basis of criminal law. Morality formed by public opinion being separate from religion? In this case, there is no such animal. Go to a reasonable man. Ask him to justify banning prostitution for reasons other then religious reason. Chances are, he will come up with some reason involving pimps, not private contractors. His argument will not apply to those who sell their body of their own free will, but he will revert to religious reasons while arguing it any way. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/76 "2005-12-19T15:16:18Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Morality formed by public opinion being separate from religion? In this case, there is no such animal. > > Go to a reasonable man. Ask him to justify banning prostitution for reasons other then religious reason. Chances are, he will come up with some reason involving pimps, not private contractors. His argument will not apply to those who sell their body of their own free will, but he will revert to religious reasons while arguing it any way. So you’re saying that for the majority of people, their view is so entwined with their religious feelings that it cannot be separated? I don’t concede the point, but for argument’s sake, let’s pretend it’s so. We still live in a country in which people elect, by popular vote, their political leaders, and vote by referendum for laws. If, as you suggest, the majority of people cannot separate their religious feelings from their moral views anyway… how can any system of laws created by the popularly-elected leaders be said to be legitimate? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/77 "2005-12-19T15:20:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you’re saying that for the majority of people, their view is so entwined with their religious feelings that it cannot be separated? No, I am saying this particular law is impossible to separate from religious reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/78 "2005-12-19T15:23:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To answer the cheating spouse question in more detail: > > 1. I think there should be no constitutional bar to such laws. > > 2. I think they are unwise public policy. While they do represent the criminalization of a moral wrong, the moral wrong is one in which the damage is generally limited to a single marriage. Prostitution, in contrast, has a huge fallout of collateral damage, and does damage to society as a whole. That’s a rather surprising argument coming from a self-confessed Catholic and conservative. Do you really believe that there is no collateral fallout from adultery, in the form of increased divorce rates, bitter custody disputes, children left with only one parent, etc.? Or things like depression, violence, and even suicide resulting from feelings of anger and betrayal? Furthermore, i think a very strong argument can be made that much of the “damage to society as a whole” caused by prostitution is either a product of other problems and inequities that could be addressed separately (child abuse in some cases; economic and power imbalances between the sexes), or is a direct result of prostitution’s illegality (the involvement of pimps and other unsavory characters; concern among prostitutes about seeking help from police). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/79 "2005-12-19T15:30:50Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > No, I am saying this particular law is impossible to separate from religious reasoning. Are there other laws that also suffer from this flaw? What means did you use to determine which laws do, and which laws do not, suffer from this impediment? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/80 "2005-12-19T15:32:14Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > That’s a rather surprising argument coming from a self-confessed Catholic and conservative. > > Do you really believe that there is no collateral fallout from adultery, in the form of increased divorce rates, bitter custody disputes, children left with only one parent, etc.? Or things like depression, violence, and even suicide resulting from feelings of anger and betrayal? > > Furthermore, i think a very strong argument can be made that much of the “damage to society as a whole” caused by prostitution is either a product of other problems and inequities that could be addressed separately (child abuse in some cases; economic and power imbalances between the sexes), or is a direct result of prostitution’s illegality (the involvement of pimps and other unsavory characters; concern among prostitutes about seeking help from police). Certainly there is collateral fallout from adultery… but much of that fallout would still exist from simple separation. So the question is… what is the DELTA – that is, what damage exists from adultery that would not exist from simple separation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213.md?page=5)