CDZ A clean debate about clean debate

[SeaGal]

As a newbie, my thoughts - no subject should be off limits. That said - a clean debate means articulating a point of view sans mud-slinging, ad hominins, values judgments, and expletives...but not passion and robust discourse. Facts themselves generally may not be debatable - but perspective can be, causation can be, calculation can be.

Example - few would argue that 1+1=anything other than 2. But an air temperature of 75 deg. Fahrenheit, while factual, might be argued by an Alaskan as being toasty warm and a Texan as refreshingly cool. Once read a story about 5 blind wise men and an elephant. It was an eye-opener.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually the poster wrote "a sizeable number".

Whelp, "a sizeable number" cannot be quantified. It's vague and empirical. It's subjective, hence not subject to Fact Control. Methinks you exhibit a hair-trigger here for no apparent reason.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Yes.

Don't go into a debate thinking that your "opponent" is too stupid to recognize when you are being a condescending asshat. Insults
wrapped in pleasantries are still insults.

 

[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?

Those are quite naïve statements.

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

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

I do not see myself as either naive or unsophisticated, as I am quite aware of various logical fallacies. Rather than people focusing on other's supposed lack of intelligence and perceptions as to their naivete or sophistication (offered so as to try to gain an advantage through denigration), I believe it would be better to simply argue one's point.

As far as fallacies are concerned, however, I would say the Tu Quoque is one of the worst. People predetermine that they absolutely must defend something so make invalid comparisons to others for the purpose of doing so.

 

[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?

Yes.

Don't go into a debate thinking that your "opponent" is too stupid to recognize when you are being a condescending asshat. Insults
wrapped in pleasantries are still insults.

Since you rated my op as "funny", which is an act of condescension in and of itself, should I assume here that you are only concerned when it is others doing so?

 

[OldLady]

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?

Yes.

Don't go into a debate thinking that your "opponent" is too stupid to recognize when you are being a condescending asshat. Insults
wrapped in pleasantries are still insults.

That is why God made the Flame Zone, for when they do that.
On the rare occasions there are threads here that (1) interest me and (2) aren't over my head, it is refreshing not to get cussed at, right off the bat. Not a lot of participants here, though, and I don't get that part.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Yes.

Don't go into a debate thinking that your "opponent" is too stupid to recognize when you are being a condescending asshat. Insults
wrapped in pleasantries are still insults.

Since you rated my op as "funny", which is an act of condescension in and of itself, should I assume here that you are only concerned when it is others doing so?

You are as likely to insult someone as I am. The difference is that I don't pretend to be above doing so.

 

[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?

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?

As to subject matter, I would say that those most problematic couple a subject matter that is contentious by very nature and an attitude that is quite outre. There is a tendency for people coupling the two in the clean debate forum KNOWING they are provoking others by doing so. Add in some hyperbolic language and it is only a recipe for ensuring clean debate is an impossibility.

 

[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?

Yes.

Don't go into a debate thinking that your "opponent" is too stupid to recognize when you are being a condescending asshat. Insults
wrapped in pleasantries are still insults.

Since you rated my op as "funny", which is an act of condescension in and of itself, should I assume here that you are only concerned when it is others doing so?

You are as likely to insult someone as I am. The difference is that I don't pretend to be above doing so.

Of course I am, but I have not insulted you in this thread.

I am heartened by your admittance that your intent was to insult me here in the clean debate forum, however, and so I do thank you for this acknowledgement as well as for making it personal in such a way as to bear out some of the innate difficulties in even attempting an actual clean debate.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with CDZ, is sometimes people go into elaborate contortions to try to insult without insulting. I think each person needs to look at their own intent. Best thing is to remember - discuss the topic, not the poster.

And in all fairness - folks forget they're in CDZ. They see a thread, and get into it without realizing where they are.

 

[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.

Actually the poster wrote "a sizeable number".

Whelp, "a sizeable number" cannot be quantified. It's vague and empirical. It's subjective, hence not subject to Fact Control. Methinks you exhibit a hair-trigger here for no apparent reason.

Well then, I guess I can just come right out and say that a "sizable number" of liberals are complete morons and not fit for life on this planet, and it is not subject to Fact Control, right? Does that make my statement any less inflammatory? Does it do anything to advance a "Clean Debate"? Does it even have a place in "Clean Debate"? I would say, "No, no, and no." As I would to the aforementioned lack of intelligence comment.

 

[OldLady]

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?

As to subject matter, I would say that those most problematic couple a subject matter that is contentious by very nature and an attitude that is quite outre. There is a tendency for people coupling the two in the clean debate forum KNOWING they are provoking others by doing so. Add in some hyperbolic language and it is only a recipe for ensuring clean debate is an impossibility.

What seems to make it so hard here is that posters nurse grudges and don't leave their frustrations in one thread but carry it on to other threads, so they're already "loaded for bear." Clean debate would be a lot easier if everyone had as lousy a memory as I do.

 

[jwoodie]

The CDZ already has posted the following guidelines:

No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping

The problem is that we do not have moderators who are willing to enforce them in a unbiased manner.

 

[OldLady]

The CDZ already has posted the following guidelines:

No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping

The problem is that we do not have moderators who are willing to enforce them in a unbiased manner.

It's true moderators have different judgments of what is acceptable and what is not. The biggest problem, I still believe, is that violations are not reported promptly.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What seems to make it so hard here is that posters nurse grudges and don't leave their frustrations in one thread but carry it on to other threads, so they're already "loaded for bear." Clean debate would be a lot easier if everyone had as lousy a memory as I do.

Well, yes, and I think we have already seen a bit of that here in this thread.

That being said, there are ways people can construct their op that either encourages or discourages such. I see far too many examples here of people issuing a call to warfare instead of eliciting a clean debate. It's like that old adage garbage in/garbage out in that when people are using the clean debate forum dishonestly and are merely looking for protection after they get in the first salvo, then it isn't really clean debate they are after.

 

[yiostheoy]

As a newbie, my thoughts - no subject should be off limits. That said - a clean debate means articulating a point of view sans mud-slinging, ad hominins, values judgments, and expletives...but not passion and robust discourse. Facts themselves generally may not be debatable - but perspective can be, causation can be, calculation can be.

Example - few would argue that 1+1=anything other than 2. But an air temperature of 75 deg. Fahrenheit, while factual, might be argued by an Alaskan as being toasty warm and a Texan as refreshingly cool. Once read a story about 5 blind wise men and an elephant. It was an eye-opener.

You listed a few of the common fallacies, good.

Here is a more complete list. Avoid all of these and your debate response should be clean:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[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.

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.

As do I -- ignore threads framed by imbeciles with obvious biases that "affirm the consequent".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

As do I -- ignore threads framed by imbeciles with obvious biases that "affirm the consequent".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Of course, we need to understand that the word "imbecile" as used in the vast majority of postings in this forum equals "those who disagree with me"

It is quite common for those who are insecure about their own intelligence to seek confirmation through shared belief.

The true sign of intelligence lies in the ability to recognize it in others even if they do not agree, and those who promote the notion that there is a connection between intelligence and the acceptance of an orthodox political outlook aren't making much a case for themselves.

 

[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.

As do I -- ignore threads framed by imbeciles with obvious biases that "affirm the consequent".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Of course, we need to understand that the word "imbecile" as used in the vast majority of postings in this forum equals "those who disagree with me"

It is quite common for those who are insecure about their own intelligence to seek confirmation through shared belief.

The true sign of intelligence lies in the ability to recognize it in others even if they do not agree, and those who promote the notion that there is a connection between intelligence and the acceptance of an orthodox political outlook aren't making much a case for themselves.

I think you might be over analysing. You can generally gauge people by what they post. My observations are that there are people who cant make a case. I fail to see that as a controversial statement as it is a position we all take.

But if they posted something of weight then I would treat it with respect.

Its no secret that I have no time for Trump and think that Clinton would have been a better pick.

However doubts were sewn by somebody highlighting her links to various interests. It made me consider the whole thing. That is a solid consideration.

People who highlight her appearance or the appearance of her kids or speculate on the father of her daughter however..................................

 

[Fishlore]

I think of clean debate as one where the emphasis is consistently on the ideas in the topic and little to no emphasis on the personalities and values of the participants with whatever said about other posters consistently polite. I am returning to this form disgusted by the name calling etc. that the recent election has provoked elsewhere. Let those whose primary satisfaction in posting comes from venting anger go elsewhere. There are plenty of sites for them and I won't miss them here.