- Download Do Not Argue - No Arguments Needed Graphic Novel
- Download Do Not Argue - No Arguments Needed Graphics Cards
- Download Do Not Argue - No Arguments Needed Graphic Organizer
Why do we argue and what the blazes is wrong with it anyway? How arguing ruins relationships. If you were raised in an argumentative household, it may feel natural to argue a lot. Maybe you get a buzz from the excitement that arguing brings. But whatever the cause, chronic arguing brings problems - and not just for the neighbours. No arguments needed. The streamer network that consists out of streamers across the globe. We stand for positive vibes, original content and interaction with the community.
- 1 day ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s historic second impeachment trial in the Senate is an undertaking like no other in U.S. History, the defeated former president charged by the House with inciting the violent mob attack on the U.S. Capitol to overturn the election in what prosecutors argue is the “most grievous constitutional crime.”. Trump’s lawyers insist as the trial opens Tuesday.
- Argument, the first premise (“All pets are cats”) is not true; therefore, if I were challenging this argument, that first premise is what I would challenge. The argument is valid as it stands, but it is not true, and therefore not a good argument. (By the way, I do have a pet, as in Premise 2, and my pet is a cat, as in the Conclusion.
Donald Trump's legal team accused House Democrats Monday of engaging in 'political theater' and argued that the upcoming Senate impeachment trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer President.
'This was only ever a selfish attempt by Democratic leadership in the House to prey upon the feelings of horror and confusion that fell upon all Americans across the entire political spectrum upon seeing the destruction at the Capitol on January 6 by a few hundred people,' Trump's lawyers wrote in a second pretrial brief filed Monday.
'Instead of acting to heal the nation, or at the very least focusing on prosecuting the lawbreakers who stormed the Capitol, the Speaker of the House and her allies have tried to callously harness the chaos of the moment for their own political gain,' the brief states.
The House managers will have an opportunity to push back on the Trump team's latest round of pretrial arguments.
On Monday, they filed their response to Trump team's initial pretrial brief, rebutting claims that both the former President and most Senate Republicans are making that the trial itself is unconstitutional.
The Democrats' legal briefing was in response to last week's filing from the Trump team, and is a preview of the arguments that will be made in the Senate when the trial begins on Tuesday.
'The evidence of President Trump's conduct is overwhelming. He has no valid excuse or defense for his actions. And his efforts to escape accountability are entirely unavailing,' the House managers write. 'As charged in the Article of Impeachment, President Trump violated his Oath of Office and betrayed the American people. His incitement of insurrection against the United States government -- which disrupted the peaceful transfer of power -- is the most grievous constitutional crime ever committed by a president.'
The five-page House brief from Monday says that Trump can stand trial in the Senate for a crime that he committed while in office. 'Presidents swear a sacred oath that binds them from their first day in office through their very last,' the Democrats write.
Video: 'Trump was looking for TV lawyer': Zeleny on Trump's new lawyer (CNN)
Trump lawyers claim 'fight like hell' comments were not literal
The 75-page legal brief from Trump's attorneys expands upon their initial response to the House's impeachment last week, in which they argued that the trial was unconstitutional, that Trump didn't incite the rioters and that his speech spreading false conspiracies about widespread election fraud is protected by the First Amendment.
Specifically, the brief filed Monday claims that Trump urged those gathered on January 6 to be peaceful and argues that his call for the crowd to 'fight like hell,' was not meant to be taken literally.
'And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,' Trump said at the time.
'Of the over 10,000 words spoken, Mr. Trump used the word 'fight' a little more than a handful of times and each time in the figurative sense that has long been accepted in public discourse when urging people to stand and use their voices to be heard on matters important to them; it was not and could not be construed to encourage acts of violence,' Trump's lawyers wrote.
'To characterize this statement alone as 'incitement to insurrection' is to ignore, wholesale, the remainder of Mr. Trump's speech that day, including his call for his supporters to 'peacefully' making their 'voices heard,' they added.
Trump's lawyers also sought to distance the former President from those who committed acts of violence on January 6 by claiming they did so on their 'own accord.'
'The real truth is that the people who criminally breached the Capitol did so of their own accord and for their own reasons, and they are being criminally prosecuted,' they wrote.
Last week, House Democrats filed their own initial pretrial brief, which provided the impeachment managers' most detailed argument to date for why Trump's actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the Capitol warranted his second impeachment in a little over a year, making him the first president in US history to have been impeached twice.
The impeachment managers charged that Trump's actions in the months leading up to January 6 of baselessly claiming the election was stolen from him created the conditions for a violent mob to be aimed 'like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue' to attack the Capitol.
Download Do Not Argue - No Arguments Needed Graphic Novel
'President Trump created a powder keg on January 6. Hundreds were prepared for violence at his direction. They were prepared to do whatever it took to keep him in power,' the managers wrote. 'All they needed to hear was that their President needed them to 'fight like hell.' All they needed was for President Trump to strike a match.'
On Monday, House Democrats pushed back on the Trump legal team's contention that Trump's false claims the election was stolen from him were protected by the First Amendment and could not be proven inaccurate.
'President Trump's repeated claims about a 'rigged' and 'stolen' election were false, no matter how many contortions his lawyers undertake to avoid saying so,' the House managers wrote.
This story has been updated with additional developments Monday.
Your Pro-Choice Cheat Sheet: How to Respond to Anti-Abortion Arguments
Posted by Robyn
March 17, 2015
Last week, my school was “lucky” enough to play host to an anti-abortion group called Creating Equal. The group stopped by for two days as part of their annual “justice ride,” in order to spread propaganda and put down the pro-choice movement.
Their argument was based on the fact that abortion is “ageism” and the group showed pictures of “abortions,” as well as a video of what an abortion looks like (on a large screen in the middle of campus, no less).
When students realized what was happening, they formed a counter-protest, complete with safe spaces to help those who were triggered by the images. Arguments over ethics and the pro-choice movement littered Facebook and one counter-protest participant admitted that an anti-abortionist had her talking in circles.
I get it. Talking pro-choice can be hard, especially if you don’t have a fact sheet in front of you or you have trouble thinking on your feet.
Here are some of the more common anti-abortionist arguments that I heard, as well as responses for you to keep in your back pocket:
“If you have sex, you have to be prepared to be responsible for the outcome of your actions.”
Not all people who have sex choose to get pregnant, and even those who do should not be forced to continue a pregnancy. This essentially shames people for enjoying sex and makes it all about reproduction rather than pleasure or connecting with a partner. I would also argue that it is more responsible for a person to have an abortion if they know that they cannot care for or support a child. The American foster and adoption systems are already very full, and there are not necessarily government systems (welfare, universal healthcare, etc.) that might provide for a child. Abortion might very well be the most responsible decision for a person.
“How is it right for someone to decide whether an innocent and defenseless child can live? All humans are created equal.”
Download Do Not Argue - No Arguments Needed Graphics Cards
An important thing to remember about pregnancy is that fetuses are dependent on the pregnant person’s body in order to stay alive. And because of an idea called bodily autonomy (i.e. the reason that you can’t be forced to donate organs even if it would save a person’s life), we cannot make a person continue a pregnancy when they do not want to. I would also point out that it isn’t right for someone to decide whether a person has to continue a pregnancy that might negatively impact them physically, socially and financially.
“I’m okay with abortion in the case of rape, but that’s it.”
We already know that many people who are raped don’t report it, so this would make it impossible for even people who actually have been assaulted to prove that they are “worthy” of an abortion. Also, lives conceived through rape are fundamentally no different than fetuses conceived otherwise, so this argument destroys the “pro-life” belief of many anti-abortionists.
Download Do Not Argue - No Arguments Needed Graphic Organizer
Specific to the demonstration on campus, someone said: “The pictures were graphic, but that’s the truth about abortion.”
Except it’s not. Surgical abortion is actually one of the safest types of medical procedures. Giving birth incurs 13 times more risk of death than having an abortion. Anti-abortionists choose to show graphic images for shock value. Most often, these photos are of miscarriages, late-term abortions (which do not represent the majority of abortions), or are otherwise Photoshopped. The overwhelming majority of abortions are safe, clean and easy—at least, when they are legal.
This isn’t an argument, but one anti-abortionist did mention this to me: “Conception occurs immediately after having sex.”
This isn’t even remotely scientifically correct. This is also assuming that everyone gets pregnant from penetrative intercourse, while many people might choose to get pregnant through other means, like in vitro fertilization. Still, even referencing penetrative sex, conception can happen multiple days after sexual intercourse. This isn’t necessarily an argument, but it was funny to me and serves as a good reminder that many anti-abortionists use incorrect facts and statistics, fallacies in their arguments, and made-up ideas.
If you do get in an argument where you need to defend reproductive justice, relax. It’s easier to make mistakes and to say rash things when you are worked up, so calm down and articulate your viewpoints clearly. You don’t need to include specific facts to make a point (for example, “legal, surgical abortion is actually a really safe procedure” is just as valid as providing the medical risk statistics).
If you are interested in looking up statistics, or looking up more reproductive justice talking points, I recommend pro-choice research sites. This article also covers more anti-abortion arguments and what you should say in response, as this is certainly not an exhaustive list.
What are your go-to talking points when discussing pro-choice and reproductive justice?
ChoiceWords is a blog that highlights the views of young people on issues related reproductive justice and gender equity.