The wages of internet debate

Internet debate is one of those aspects of modern life with which I have something akin to a love-hate relationship. By that I do not mean that there is some aspect of internet debate that I love. I hate the way people get during these debates. People are childish and rude when their opinions are questioned, put to the tests of logic, reason, and evidence, and found wanting. They don't want you to provide them with an ironclad case for your argument. They want to feel like they said something clever and witty that you can't trump. When you prove that you can, they become angry and belligerent. It happens every time. The next step the other side takes is personal attack or some other kind of frustrating non-debate behavior.

Why do I even bother?

Most of the time, it isn't because I'm looking for debate. Sometimes, it's because someone stated something in a forum where I'm active, and I've found the statement to be incorrect, and sometimes even deliberately misleading. More often, it's because a third party has entered a discussion between myself and another, arguing against whatever statements I've made. On more than a few occasions, the latter has included a tone of personal offense at my opinion, not because my opinion is socially offensive, but because the individual does not agree with me.

This recently occurred in a discussion on the difference between Mifepristone, the Morning After pill (previously know as RU-486,) and the Birth Control Pill.

The discussion was initiated by a mother whose daughter is in college. The daughter had informed the mother that her school's clinic had given her a pamphlet on Mifepristone, calling it an emergency birth control pill that prevents pregnancy. The terminology in the pamphlet was phrased in half-truths, carefully leaving out the fact that the pill is an abortifacient rather than a pill that prevents conception. The mother was concerned that the daughter was misunderstanding the drug's function, and posted a query about it online. I happened across that, and replied with a description of what the drug is, what it does, and links to a few sites with more information.

The question was on a pro-life site, but not a high traffic site, so I answered it from a pro-life point of view. I did receive notification of a reply once, but it was mostly unrelated. I did contribute to that line of discussion, but did not receive a reply from the writer. Then, months later, I received a notice of reply, and I checked it out. A new commenter replied to my last comment, and asserted that "in a large percentage of cases" modern birth control pills are also abortifacients.

The statement was ridiculous and the writer offered no evidence to back it up. I replied with a description of the mechanism by which modern birth control pills work. The basic summary of this is that these pills work by preventing ovulation. Preventing ovulation prevents pregnancy. As a secondary effect, the pills also thickens the cervical mucus, creating somewhat of a barrier that deters fertilization. By preventing conception, hormonal birth control pills are not acting as an abortifacient, but as a preventative.

I really thought that would clear up the issue. Instead, the guy got offended and began spouting crap about possibilities and people being informed. He basically offered "this is what everyone would think if they knew what I know" as a debate point.

I replied with a request for any information he had that would back up his statement, as I had been unable to find anything credible. He linked to a religious site which stated ethical concerns related to using birth control pills based on hypothetical circumstances for which there is no proof. According to these folks, it's a regular thing for ovulation to occur despite correct use of hormonal birth control, and the pill relies on the same mechanism as Mifepristone to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterine wall.

Though medical sites which describe the pill state that the drug creates changes in the uterine wall which would impair implantation should conception occur, a study published in the American Journal of Gynocology in 1999 found that there is no evidence to support the claim that the hormones that make up the pill have that abortifacient action. It has been found that conception with failed implantation does not occur more in women using birth control pills than it does in women who are not using them. If the pill were a cause for failed implantation, then there would be a larger percentage of women on the pill experiencing that kind of miscarriage when compared to women who are not on the pill.

I found several other articles discussing the same issue, all of which concluded that data just did not support the idea that hormonal birth control (the pill and the Depo shot) allows ovulation and fertilization to take place and then acts as an abortifacient. I gave him a summary and links. I did not dumb down what I was writing, because in the past I've been "yelled" (typed at in all caps) at for that. However, I don't think my debate opponent understood what I wrote, because he didn't address it at all, and it took him several minutes to reply, where his replies had previously been fast and furious.

This is where the discussion became fun.

I cited information from medical and scientific sources, and my debater cited his bible. GOD KNEW YOU IN THE WOMB really isn't an effective counterargument when discussing whether or not the thinning of the uterine tissue has been conclusively proved to prevent implantation in a naturally occurring pregnancy. It doesn't address the basic issue at hand, and is therefore not really a relevant point in the discussion.

However, explaining that to a confused evangelical debater is kind of like explaining to a toddler that he can't have the big candy bar because it's too much candy all at once and it'll make him sick. He doesn't care about the evidence. He's just going to repeat with more force and animation that he wants the candy bar.

The discussion continued with his assertion that people who chose to inform themselves would know what he was talking about. I've encountered this tactic before. It implies that you don't know what you're talking about without backing up the implication. It's designed to be an insult but it makes the user look stupid. I pointed out that he was 1) still not offering me any evidence, and 2) repeating himself.

My debate opponent decided to pretend to go the scientific route, and offered me the Billings method of Rhythm birth control as a serious counterpoint to the question of frequent ovulation during use of birth control pills.

By this time, the man had clicked on my name and was messaging me privately, apparently to avoid embarrassing himself in public. I could have blocked him, but I momentarily lost my mind and decided to humor him.

I pointed out that the rhythm method produces parents, and that measuring the thickness of one's cervical mucus is an ineffective way to test for ovulation if one is taking medication which thickens the cervical mucus. I further pointed out that none of the arguments he's made so far back up his initial assertion of common occurrence. As a counterpoint to these things, he offered the incredibly emphatic statement that THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH!

I can no longer take this man seriously. I have decided to reply in kind. To that end, I've sent back a message with the following picture in it.



That was followed by the statement that I do not tolerate childish tantrums, and that he has a better chance of persuading me to continue the debate if he relies on logic and reason rather than unrelated quotes, which do nothing to persuade the reader. I stated that if he wasn't going to stick to the subject at least in respect to offering a counterpoint, I wasn't going to take him seriously.

I hadn't heard back from him, but I've noticed that I now cannot see his arguments on the thread. I'm guessing that the fellow couldn't handle the conversation, and has blocked me rather than face the discrepancies in his logic, and continues to be deeply offended that I do not think taking birth control pills equals having an abortion every month. Regardless, it's yet another individual who started an argument with me, got mad at me for knowing what I was talking about, and then took the discussion into the realm of the ridiculous, turning the debate into an argument... which is why I hate internet debate. That seems to be how it always ends up.