Argument without purpose is argument for argument’s sake

After two days of students engaging anti-abortion groups, what was the point?


Madelaine Church

A sign from Project Truth claiming their truth sounds like hate to others. One student is debating with two members of the group behind the sign.

Gavin Hudson

“There is no hate like Christian love.” A common phrase that has become so relevant with the latest protest on campus.

Recently a pro-life Christian group called Project Truth joined forces with a few random street preachers to enter Sacramento State’s campus. That afternoon, their voices could be heard across the Library quad as they engaged in intellectual discussion with the collegiate student base to appear once and for all solve the nationwide question of abortion rights. 

Let’s not kid ourselves.

Actually, Project Truth goes around to colleges for two days at a time to disrupt students with graphic images of aborted fetuses. They do this so students – often siding with the pro-choice side of the debate – will get uncomfortable, annoyed or angry and do something foolish. 

If they’re ever criticized, they paint themselves as victims simply for their opinions. They also walk around with GoPro cameras strapped to their chest to capture anything that could help them avoid being labeled as the aggressor. 

It’s not nearly as effective as it is elaborate — and ludicrous.

A member of Project Truth attempts to pass out pamphlets to uninterested students. With GoPros and gloves, the group comes prepared. (Photo Credit: Madelaine Church)

While they consistently preach about God wanting to preserve life, history proves otherwise in the case of Manifest Destiny or the Crusades. Religion is largely hypocritical, but that’s not my only focus here.

Argumentation serves an important purpose in modern society: ideas are exchanged with a party possessing an opposing view to convey position and reason. You test your view by comparing it with another side and ideally attempt to understand where the other side is coming from.

These dorks like to argue the same way Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Shapiro would: they regurgitate “gotcha” points, try to push your buttons and will never admit that anyone opposing made a good point. 

Project Truth and the other aggressors who came to Sac State caused general distress instead of having structured or meaningful discussions. Parties like them are the very reason this debate never changes. They never sought a compelling argument; they just want to shame those who see the issue from the other side.

I listened to a few debates between students and Project Truth to see how healthy the dialogue was.

Whenever a student would challenge them on a point of contention, one Project Truth member would just hurl insults toward them about how they shouldn’t be in college if they don’t agree.

Though students may seem more aggressive or annoying in clips – they probably didn’t wake up that day itching for an argument. They were provoked and worked effectively to amuse themselves and annoy the opposing side.

These colorful happenings all culminate in my final point. They didn’t show up to have an argument, they showed up to cause a disruption. 

These types of political agitators exist to piss people off about a major point of contention in modern politics, using footage or photos from their disruptions to paint the narrative that their religious beliefs are actively and consistently persecuted by left-leaning groups. 

If they try to provoke you, just walk past them. There’s no point in giving them what they want. They have nothing better to do with their time than to provoke people going on about their day. 

Make their day suck; ignore them.