CDZ A clean debate about clean debate

[Dogmaphobe]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

 

[saveliberty]

What happened to use antibacterial soap first?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What happened to use antibacterial soap first?

What?! -- and suppress your natural immune system?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

 

[oldsoul]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

I would argue that your statement violates numbers one and two, while you attempt to actually agree. I find that pretty interesting. Why is it that you believe, "A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate..."? Is that not assuming it is a lack of intelligence, and not a lack of knowledge or skill? Is that not dividing people into two groups and maligning one of them? Who do you think should police the forum carefully? What constitutes "behaving"? And who decides? I have found, through your posts, that you seem to be little interested in my mindset, and more interested in proving you are right.
So, in summary, I think your entire post is disingenuous, divisive, and frankly, dishonest. You seem to wish to appeal to ones gut reaction/emotion, not intellect. If this where not true, I believe you would have spelled things out in better detail, and been more accurately descriptive of your observations.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

I would argue that your statement violates numbers one and two, while you attempt to actually agree. I find that pretty interesting. Why is it that you believe, "A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate..."? Is that not assuming it is a lack of intelligence, and not a lack of knowledge or skill? Is that not dividing people into two groups and maligning one of them? Who do you think should police the forum carefully? What constitutes "behaving"? And who decides? I have found, through your posts, that you seem to be little interested in my mindset, and more interested in proving you are right.
So, in summary, I think your entire post is disingenuous, divisive, and frankly, dishonest. You seem to wish to appeal to ones gut reaction/emotion, not intellect. If this where not true, I believe you would have spelled things out in better detail, and been more accurately descriptive of your observations.

The mods have set up this forum for clean debate and they need to police it to ensure that this happens. The list that the OP has put up is a reasonable list but as I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

And I think you are projecting a little in your precis of my motives.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

I would argue that your statement violates numbers one and two, while you attempt to actually agree. I find that pretty interesting. Why is it that you believe, "A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate..."? Is that not assuming it is a lack of intelligence, and not a lack of knowledge or skill? Is that not dividing people into two groups and maligning one of them? Who do you think should police the forum carefully? What constitutes "behaving"? And who decides? I have found, through your posts, that you seem to be little interested in my mindset, and more interested in proving you are right.
So, in summary, I think your entire post is disingenuous, divisive, and frankly, dishonest. You seem to wish to appeal to ones gut reaction/emotion, not intellect. If this where not true, I believe you would have spelled things out in better detail, and been more accurately descriptive of your observations.

The mods have set up this forum for clean debate and they need to police it to ensure that this happens. The list that the OP has put up is a reasonable list but as I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

And I think you are projecting a little in your precis of my motives.

Saying the op is a fag would be an obvious violation of the rules of clean debate, so I am sure mods would respond to such an occurrence here.

My thread was designed to elicit a discussion as to what measures people could take so that mods are hardly necessary here, however, rather than to elicit finger pointing.

As far as discussions of other people's intelligence here is concerned, I think these are best left to the other forums and not this one. One aspect of intelligence is reason, and so rather than calling people stupid, a better approach here might be for people to provide superior reasoning skills in such a way as to prove their own. Adopting the attitude that adherence to a strict doctrine or tribe is a sign of intelligence does not do that. If people think that only those who agree with them are intelligent, perhaps areas other than clean debate might be a better option.

 

[Pogo]

As I see it, despite the best intentions of this site and others like it, few are interested in actual debate, and certainly not in being exposed to an alternate POV. Mostly it's a venue to vent without the responsibility of listening back; to shore up one's own POV via an echo chamber, and shout down, individually and collectively, any question of it, which is seen as a "threat" (which indeed it is, since it suggests one would have to rethink one's position, which in turn is actual intellectual work rather than the path of least resistance -- parroting the same tired meme one came to the dance with).

As I'm fond of repeating: "when the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

I suspect that fatal self-indulgence is an inevitable aspect of the Internets. Sigh.

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe there are a lot of people who "lack the intelligence for clean debate", though there surely are a few.

Rather, I think there are a lot who don't have the GUTS for it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

I would argue that your statement violates numbers one and two, while you attempt to actually agree. I find that pretty interesting. Why is it that you believe, "A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate..."? Is that not assuming it is a lack of intelligence, and not a lack of knowledge or skill? Is that not dividing people into two groups and maligning one of them? Who do you think should police the forum carefully? What constitutes "behaving"? And who decides? I have found, through your posts, that you seem to be little interested in my mindset, and more interested in proving you are right.
So, in summary, I think your entire post is disingenuous, divisive, and frankly, dishonest. You seem to wish to appeal to ones gut reaction/emotion, not intellect. If this where not true, I believe you would have spelled things out in better detail, and been more accurately descriptive of your observations.

The mods have set up this forum for clean debate and they need to police it to ensure that this happens. The list that the OP has put up is a reasonable list but as I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

And I think you are projecting a little in your precis of my motives.

Saying the op is a fag would be an obvious violation of the rules of clean debate, so I am sure mods would respond to such an occurrence here.

My thread was designed to elicit a discussion as to what measures people could take so that mods are hardly necessary here, however, rather than to elicit finger pointing.

As far as discussions of other people's intelligence here is concerned, I think these are best left to the other forums and not this one. One aspect of intelligence is reason, and so rather than calling people stupid, a better approach here might be for people to provide superior reasoning skills in such a way as to prove their own. Adopting the attitude that adherence to a strict doctrine or tribe is a sign of intelligence does not do that. If people think that only those who agree with them are intelligent, perhaps areas other than clean debate might be a better option.

But the need for a clean debate zone is a recognition that there are low standards on the other forums.You could argue that it isnt stupidity but perhaps bad manners that drives it. I wouldnt dispute that.

Either way you have a CDZ that would only work if there are mods who will keep order. Self regulation doesnt work here and it never will because there are few if any consequences.

 

[oldsoul]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

I would argue that your statement violates numbers one and two, while you attempt to actually agree. I find that pretty interesting. Why is it that you believe, "A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate..."? Is that not assuming it is a lack of intelligence, and not a lack of knowledge or skill? Is that not dividing people into two groups and maligning one of them? Who do you think should police the forum carefully? What constitutes "behaving"? And who decides? I have found, through your posts, that you seem to be little interested in my mindset, and more interested in proving you are right.
So, in summary, I think your entire post is disingenuous, divisive, and frankly, dishonest. You seem to wish to appeal to ones gut reaction/emotion, not intellect. If this where not true, I believe you would have spelled things out in better detail, and been more accurately descriptive of your observations.

The mods have set up this forum for clean debate and they need to police it to ensure that this happens. The list that the OP has put up is a reasonable list but as I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

And I think you are projecting a little in your precis of my motives.

I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

On what FACTUAL basis do you make this claim? Are you privy to people's IQ? If so, please tell me where I can obtain such information. I assume that you do not have such info. therefore, to state that ANYONE does not have the intelligence for clean debate is exactly the type of thing that makes clean debate impossible.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

No, that would not contribute to any discussion. If you encounter such bigotry, I would suggest the best course of action is to ignore it. However, that poster may very well have legitimate arguments, but lacks the skill, or desire, to express them. To say, from that statement, that they lack the intelligence for clean debate does nothing to further a discussion either. It is, IMO, much the same as calling one a "fag".

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

It needs to be policed carefully. People who cannot behave should not have access to the forum.
I might think that you are wrong on most things but I am interested in what drives your mindset.
A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate and resort to abuse very quickly.

I would argue that your statement violates numbers one and two, while you attempt to actually agree. I find that pretty interesting. Why is it that you believe, "A lot of people on this board lack the intelligence to engage in clean debate..."? Is that not assuming it is a lack of intelligence, and not a lack of knowledge or skill? Is that not dividing people into two groups and maligning one of them? Who do you think should police the forum carefully? What constitutes "behaving"? And who decides? I have found, through your posts, that you seem to be little interested in my mindset, and more interested in proving you are right.
So, in summary, I think your entire post is disingenuous, divisive, and frankly, dishonest. You seem to wish to appeal to ones gut reaction/emotion, not intellect. If this where not true, I believe you would have spelled things out in better detail, and been more accurately descriptive of your observations.

The mods have set up this forum for clean debate and they need to police it to ensure that this happens. The list that the OP has put up is a reasonable list but as I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

And I think you are projecting a little in your precis of my motives.

I have stated there are a sizeable number of posters on here who lack the intelligence to participate.

On what FACTUAL basis do you make this claim? Are you privy to people's IQ? If so, please tell me where I can obtain such information. I assume that you do not have such info. therefore, to state that ANYONE does not have the intelligence for clean debate is exactly the type of thing that makes clean debate impossible.

There are several I could mention. As an example there is a poster who responds with "OP is a fag" when ever I start a thread. What could he contribute to any discussion ?

No, that would not contribute to any discussion. If you encounter such bigotry, I would suggest the best course of action is to ignore it. However, that poster may very well have legitimate arguments, but lacks the skill, or desire, to express them. To say, from that statement, that they lack the intelligence for clean debate does nothing to further a discussion either. It is, IMO, much the same as calling one a "fag".

I can only relate the experience I have on this board. There are some great posters who can make a point and back it up and then there are those who can do neither.
I cant quantify that for you but I think you are on dodgy ground if you are claiming that all posters are intelligent enough to hold a conversation.
When somebody posts "OP is a fag" I struggle to see beyond that comment so that I can appreciate the depth of their intellect.
If you have a look at some of the threads on this board you will see that some people cannot act in an adult way.
There is one recent thread that was locked,20 posts deleted and posters warned. Within two or three postings the nonsense had started again.
I will try and dig it up.

 

[oldsoul]

I cant quantify that for you but I think you are on dodgy ground if you are claiming that all posters are intelligent enough to hold a conversation.

I am not claiming that in the slightest. I am saying that either you nor I have the necessary information to make such a determination. Therefore, claiming any, one single person, lacks the intelligence for an activity is being divisive (unless one has factual evidence to support the claim), and is not conducive to clean debate.
Not that I am without guilt here, because I am not, and neither are you.That is my only point. You seem to be quick to point the finger at others' guilt, and yet you struggle to see your own, even when it's explained for you. To me that is a sign of one of two things: 1)Lack of intelligence or 2)out-right hubris. I really don't care which it is, it is not conducive to clean debate.

 

[Picaro]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

All laudable ideals, but such discussion isn't even going on at universities any more, so the numbers of people who have experience with such premises is becoming minuscule, and mostly takes place on much smaller boards and blogs these days, which is why there are so many threads in the CDZ that are so short, may 4 to 8 posts.

I suppose one could go back and raise a few necro threads, since outside of the usual election cycle astro-turfing partisan political nonsense that is the usual fare dominant here, maybe newer posters can make a few relevant points in those; there isn't a wide variety of topics, many threads are repeats of older ones anyway, with no new 'news' to add, but that would require more moderation effort, not likely on such an active and large board, for obvious reasons. Many of the other forums, like History and especially the Religion and Ethics forums, suffer the same problems, and they are supposed to be 'Clean' forums.

I don't think the demographics of large generalized boards, and not just this one, are all that conducive to these ideals. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, though, as the message board format is far better than the blogs and specialized forums that only focus on a handful of topics, and avoid pop culture type stuff altogether. It's up to the users whether or not such ideals are followed, and there is no real way to control much of it. Even the old Internet Infidels site ended up failing, one of my favorites years ago; it used to be a great site, but Dawkins had his tantrums and psycho meltdowns and wrecked it out of spite along with his mentally ill sycophants, many of whom make a point of ruining other forums in their cult-like hate fests, like the Religion forum here, for instance.

 

[OldLady]

I really didn't see anything radical or unusual about the OP's suggestions for the CDZ. They pretty much ARE the rules for the CDZ, far as I know. The problem is, the rules get ignored.
I've had posts taken down in this forum and it has been suggested every single time to REPORT trolls, report violations. There are only a couple mods on at a time, and they actually have other stuff to do besides what we see when a thread is interrupted.
Personally, I don't like making reports that much. It makes me feel like a whiny tattle tale. But if anyone wanted it to stay clean and in accordance with the rules, the violations would have to be reported immediately by all participants.

 

[Coyote]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

I think those are great suggestions.

I would add, be careful in your choice of subject matter and how you frame it. Some topics are just too inflammatory to work in CDZ, others might be but if you frame them well - they can encourage discussion rather than reaction.

Is the OP going to immediately put a group on the defensive or is it going to encourage that group to discuss?

The whole idea about CDZ is to promote discussion in a civil and respectful way - thought the rules don't explicitely state can't do this, insulting or putting down an entire group is not going to promote civil discussion.

Sometimes a good rule of thumb is - how would I feel if xyz were directed at me?

 

[yiostheoy]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

Those are quite naïve statements.

On a more sophisticated level, a clean debate simply has NO fallacies:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

...
I would add, be careful in your choice of subject matter and how you frame it. Some topics are just too inflammatory to work in CDZ, others might be but if you frame them well - they can encourage discussion rather than reaction.

Is the OP going to immediately put a group on the defensive or is it going to encourage that group to discuss?

The whole idea about CDZ is to promote discussion in a civil and respectful way - thought the rules don't explicitely state can't do this, insulting or putting down an entire group is not going to promote civil discussion.

Sometimes a good rule of thumb is - how would I feel if xyz were directed at me?

I agree that "framing the question" (normally a fallacy of affirming the consequent -- such as "why is ..." when it is NOT) is an often used trick of rhetoric.

This is covered in the fallacy list as well.

 

[yiostheoy]

I can only relate the experience I have on this board. There are some great posters who can make a point and back it up and then there are those who can do neither.
I cant quantify that for you but I think you are on dodgy ground if you are claiming that all posters are intelligent enough to hold a conversation.
When somebody posts "OP is a fag" I struggle to see beyond that comment so that I can appreciate the depth of their intellect.
If you have a look at some of the threads on this board you will see that some people cannot act in an adult way.
There is one recent thread that was locked,20 posts deleted and posters warned. Within two or three postings the nonsense had started again.
I will try and dig it up.

Backing up a statement with a citation such as a valid internet link is critical to establishing and verifying facts and truth, yes.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I can only relate the experience I have on this board. There are some great posters who can make a point and back it up and then there are those who can do neither.
I cant quantify that for you but I think you are on dodgy ground if you are claiming that all posters are intelligent enough to hold a conversation.
When somebody posts "OP is a fag" I struggle to see beyond that comment so that I can appreciate the depth of their intellect.
If you have a look at some of the threads on this board you will see that some people cannot act in an adult way.
There is one recent thread that was locked,20 posts deleted and posters warned. Within two or three postings the nonsense had started again.
I will try and dig it up.

Backing up a statement with a citation such as a valid internet link is critical to establishing and verifying facts and truth, yes.

I brought this up a while back and it wasnt seen as important.

Posting prejudice as "fact"

Now I tend to ignore threads that have no actual basis.
For example unverified videos which ,in truth, can be debunked very quickly.