Another big difference: Target Audience. In a dialogue, you're trying to convince the person you're talking to of your position. In a debate, both people have their view locked down, and one is very unlikely to convince the other. In that case you're trying to convince the people in the audience. The people that are still in the middle, on the fence, that have not yet made up their mind on the issue. They are going to decide who is "winning" in the debate.
Great article! Is there an article already (and if not could you possibly see about writing one) about how to respond if the other person in the conversation resorts to debate tactics to help bring it back to a more natural, laid-back, relationship-based collaboration between two people?
Pro-Choicer here. I agree with almost everything here. Thank you for the well written article. My only quibble would be with point number #3. In many conversations Pro-Lifers will make the claim "Every scientist believes that life begins at conception" or that "Every textbook says that life begins at conception" and when I press them on evidence for that, they don't seem to bring anything reputable (given it's just a conversation). And then the conversation just shuts down because that's a central point in a conversation in debating when life begins or whether the fetus is a person.
Greetings! So glad you enjoyed the article. It's definitely frustrating when people don't defend their claims! Here's a webpage we made with a bunch of sources (including Amazon links) to embryology textbooks that clearly state that biological life begins at fertilization: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/sources/ Quick clarification though. As you said, much of the debate is about personhood, not biological life. Whether or not a thing is biologically alive is a very different discussion than whether or not that thing morally matters. Embryologists aren't philosophers, so we wouldn't look to them to be experts on personhood. But they are the scientists who study fetal development, so we do see them as the experts on this scientific question. But of course, embryos could theoretically be alive but not persons yet, so it doesn't settle the abortion debate by any means. Hope that helps!
Thank you for the comment. Though I still remain unconvinced, I do appreciate the link as I do now have an origin for where most the pro-life claims for the beginning of life come from.
In a dialogue, you're trying to convince the person you're talking to of your position. In a debate, both people have their view locked down, and one is very unlikely to convince the other. In that case you're trying to convince the people in the audience. The people that are still in the middle, on the fence, that have not yet made up their mind on the issue. They are going to decide who is "winning" in the debate.
It's definitely frustrating when people don't defend their claims! Here's a webpage we made with a bunch of sources (including Amazon links) to embryology textbooks that clearly state that biological life begins at fertilization: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/sources/
Quick clarification though. As you said, much of the debate is about personhood, not biological life. Whether or not a thing is biologically alive is a very different discussion than whether or not that thing morally matters. Embryologists aren't philosophers, so we wouldn't look to them to be experts on personhood. But they are the scientists who study fetal development, so we do see them as the experts on this scientific question. But of course, embryos could theoretically be alive but not persons yet, so it doesn't settle the abortion debate by any means.
Hope that helps!