What is "debate"? An FYI

[Foxfyre]

I would Ask that The Thread Titles in this Protected Forum, be given adequate Thought, before posting them. They should not be Inflammatory. There is always what you have to say, and, how you frame it.

Or at least if the thread title could be interpreted as inflammatory, explain the reason for it in the opening line of the OP. One of Mebelle's threads, for instance,referring to "Mitt 'the rat'" or some such is an excellent thread and the term came from another source she was using. Unfortunately she didn't adequately explain that and therefore it was criticized as being derogatory in a way that she did not intend.

 

[cereal_killer]

Thanks CK. We're giving it a whirl. The dedicated efforts elsewhere to ridicule and put down those of us who WANT a forum like this are probably eroding our numbers as some members won't won't to incur their snotty personal comments. But hopefully there are enough grown ups to make it work.

Would the board software allow CDZ thread titles to be a different color so folks coming in off the new posts or active topics lists will realize it is a CDZ thread?

And while it is not really all that much of a problem, it would give some less ammunition to use against this forum if the name was changed to Civil Discussion Zone as the terms 'clean' and 'debate' seem to be a huge issue with some.

Like I said in the announcement it's not going anywhere and is here to stay. The people that can't abide by the simple guidelines set forth will eventually have their privileges revoked after 3 strikes. So it's a temporary problem with a permanent solution. Keep that in mind. The forum will work and is working, we just ironed out some bumps.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks CK. We're giving it a whirl. The dedicated efforts elsewhere to ridicule and put down those of us who WANT a forum like this are probably eroding our numbers as some members won't won't to incur their snotty personal comments. But hopefully there are enough grown ups to make it work.

Would the board software allow CDZ thread titles to be a different color so folks coming in off the new posts or active topics lists will realize it is a CDZ thread?

And while it is not really all that much of a problem, it would give some less ammunition to use against this forum if the name was changed to Civil Discussion Zone as the terms 'clean' and 'debate' seem to be a huge issue with some.

Like I said in the announcement it's not going anywhere and is here to stay. The people that can't abide by the simple guidelines set forth will eventually have their privileges revoked after 3 strikes. So it's a temporary problem with a permanent solution. Keep that in mind. The forum will work and is working, we just ironed out some bumps.

And I appreciate that. The only thing is I don't want anybody to get booted out of the forum because they didn't notice that threads were in the CDZ zone. There are a lot of folks who enjoy a more combative style on threads where that is allowed, but who also enjoy the non-combative atmosphere in the CDZ. But I know some have received warnings ONLY because they forgot to look to see what forum they were posting in.

I am already learning to appreciate some folks in the CDZ that I had formerly considered hopeless trolls. They actually do think and have some good debating skills and are giving me a good run for my money as worthy opponents and I am liking that a lot. We do need to be sure everybody has the best possible chance to catch on to the new thing.

 

[cereal_killer]

Thanks CK. We're giving it a whirl. The dedicated efforts elsewhere to ridicule and put down those of us who WANT a forum like this are probably eroding our numbers as some members won't won't to incur their snotty personal comments. But hopefully there are enough grown ups to make it work.

Would the board software allow CDZ thread titles to be a different color so folks coming in off the new posts or active topics lists will realize it is a CDZ thread?

And while it is not really all that much of a problem, it would give some less ammunition to use against this forum if the name was changed to Civil Discussion Zone as the terms 'clean' and 'debate' seem to be a huge issue with some.

Like I said in the announcement it's not going anywhere and is here to stay. The people that can't abide by the simple guidelines set forth will eventually have their privileges revoked after 3 strikes. So it's a temporary problem with a permanent solution. Keep that in mind. The forum will work and is working, we just ironed out some bumps.

And I appreciate that. The only thing is I don't want anybody to get booted out of the forum because they didn't notice that threads were in the CDZ zone. There are a lot of folks who enjoy a more combative style on threads where that is allowed, but who also enjoy the non-combative atmosphere in the CDZ. But I know some have received warnings ONLY because they forgot to look to see what forum they were posting in.

I am already learning to appreciate some folks in the CDZ that I had formerly considered hopeless trolls. They actually do think and have some good debating skills and are giving me a good run for my money as worthy opponents and I am liking that a lot. We do need to be sure everybody has the best possible chance to catch on to the new thing.

No worries, the mods know mistakes happen.....

 

[Swagger]

I have a question unrelated to the debating guidelines/criteria, but I thought I'd pose it here seeing as an administrator's present.

I have a thread I want to post that's premise is based on the work of an esteemed academic that writes on LiveJournal, an outlet that is fiercely protective of its content. My OP will draw heavily on the research found at LiveJournal, but I'd make that obvious via a disclaimer. I can either attch a collage of sanctioned PDFs, or attempt to construct my own OP based on the PDFs I've downloaded, without blatantly plagiarising. I assume the latter would be more favourable in terms ease/convenience.

What's the best course of action?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a question unrelated to the debating guidelines/criteria, but I thought I'd pose it here seeing as an administrator's present.

I have a thread I want to post that's premise is based on the work of an esteemed academic that writes on LiveJournal, an outlet that is fiercely protective of its content. My OP will draw heavily on the research found at LiveJournal, but I'd make that obvious via a disclaimer. I can either attch a collage of sanctioned PDFs, or attempt to construct my own OP based on the PDFs I've downloaded, without blatantly plagiarising. I assume the latter would be more favourable in terms ease/convenience.

What's the best course of action?

In my opinion, if you want a good discussion, keep it relatively simple, provide an easy-to-read and reasonably short summary of the thesis and provide a link or links for further reading.

Even I shy away from threads that require a great deal of reading of more pedantic material or in which there is no clear point that one is trying to accomplish. (Except for those of mine that fall into that category of course. )

 

[cereal_killer]

I have a question unrelated to the debating guidelines/criteria, but I thought I'd pose it here seeing as an administrator's present.

I have a thread I want to post that's premise is based on the work of an esteemed academic that writes on LiveJournal, an outlet that is fiercely protective of its content. My OP will draw heavily on the research found at LiveJournal, but I'd make that obvious via a disclaimer. I can either attch a collage of sanctioned PDFs, or attempt to construct my own OP based on the PDFs I've downloaded, without blatantly plagiarising. I assume the latter would be more favourable in terms ease/convenience.

What's the best course of action?

Yes, the latter would be a better choice. I'd also recommend you keep it simple and succinct otherwise you might lose some people. May be a tough one to do though from the looks of it.

The very least keep it somewhat simple.

 

[Swagger]

Thanks for the input, Fox & CK. I assumed that the latter would be the best course of action. But I thought it best to alert the admin as I know from reading their site that LiveJournal are very proactive in terms of monitoring the internet for violations of copyright concerning the research they publish.

 

[newpolitics]

people are already arguing about arguing? That's hilarious. This board was a great idea. Maybe some actual debates can happen without insults being strewn left and right just because you belong to a particular side, and we can actually talk about the issues at hand and get some ego's out of the way.

 

[Yurt]

Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.

DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.

exactly. unless you're in an actual debate competition, is it NOT always about winning. i debate most of the time without a single thought of winning, instead i debate to expand my horizons or challenge those i'm talking with. i've learned more from "losing" a debate than "winning" a debate.

 

[oldfart]

Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

I hope you had as much fun with your debate experience as I had in mine, both as a debater in high school and college and as a debate coach. Someone has posted a link to the formal rules of forensic debate which may be helpful, but I think most folks will be aided by some more general lessons.

1. In formal debate each team alternates the side of the question they represent. There are some technical reasons for this (most topics are "unbalanced" at the start of the season and the alternating corrects for this bias), but the major reason is to instill a point: just because you can win an argument does not make you right! While I am not suggesting we alternate sides, I am noting that skill in debating leads to civility in disourse and there is a huge penalty for ad hominems.

2. There is a well defined question at the start of each debate. I think this board would be much improved if everyone started a thread with with a well developed thesis sentence and if every post also began with such a statement. I especially abhor the practice of posting lengthy quotes which do not have a clear singular statement.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments.

Advocacy like reasoning itself rests on two pillars: logic and evidence. Logic has to do with the structure of an argument while evidence has to do with the factual testing of premises and assumptions. The evidence should support the lowest level of premises which should support the next level up to the thesis of the argument. Conversely an argument can be attacked by disputing the evidence or contesting the logic. Most good rebuttal requires both.

Finally academic debate puts a premium on good organization. If you are going to assert or attack a position on three points, state at the start that there are three points, number them, state them, show how they support or refute the thesis, and use logic and evidence to back up your position. And at the end review them again.

Best of luck to everyone.

Jamie

 

[Foxfyre]

I too have been on debate teams, have been a debate coach, have been a debate judge.

Unless the participants can stick around to complete the entire debate at one sitting, and unless there are judges present and who can step in if proper protocol is violated, a message board is not conducive to formal debate. I have seen it attempted on other forums, but it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and too often even the participants tire of it and quit before any conclusion is accomplished.

A message board can, however, provide a good forum for those expressing their convictions and testing whether those convictions will hold up under scrutiny and challenge. If the CDZ accomplishes nothing more than keeping a thread from dissolving into a food fight or pissing context, I will be a happy camper.

I still wish thread titles in the CDZ could be a different color to alert members that it is the CDZ. We already have people permanently banned from the CDZ who had potential to be good participants.

And I wish the title of the forum would be changed to Civil Discussion Zone to remove the confusion of the term 'debate' and the stigma some have attached to the term 'clean' that continues to keep people from posting in this forum.

 

[freedombecki]

I would really like to see threads started require a source/link. This will cut down on "I heard/think" threads that leave nothing up for debate but attacking each other.

1: Link/source

2: The OP's thoughts/opinion

Trust me as this works wonders.

I've been to that board, too. That's why I came here instead.

 

[jaymiewilson]

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[MaryL]

Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments. Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a. Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b. Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c. Support, support, support.
d. Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e. Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2. Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks. The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3. DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion. And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4. Read the posts carefully - listen carefully. Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5. Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant. Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6. Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7. Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.). Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.


Just a start. Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great. The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.

But on the other hand, there is the you -are- a- poopyhead train of thought that seems so popular nowadays. Don't write them off. They vote. They supported GW BUSH and Obama. And that is why we are doing so good now.

 

[Billo_Really]

Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments. Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a. Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b. Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c. Support, support, support.
d. Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e. Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2. Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks. The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3. DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion. And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4. Read the posts carefully - listen carefully. Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5. Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant. Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6. Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7. Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.). Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.


Just a start. Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great. The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.

My speech class teacher had an interesting way of making sure No.4 on the list was enforced (so to speak) in a formal debate, with one caveat:

"You could not state your point, until you were able to
state the oppositions point, back to them, to their satisfaction."​

Only then, could you move on to your actual rebuttal.

Basically, if you don't know the point someone else is making, then you don't know what you're responding to. And if you don't know what you're responding to, then you don't know what you're talking about. At that point, you're no longer debating, you're just pontificating your own personal views to the world.

Regarding the "burden of proof", the one who initially makes a claim, does have the "burden" of providing corroborative citations to back up that claim. Otherwise, it's just treated as an opinion and not a fact. However, after that, the "burden of proof" shifts to the "objector" to provide corroborative evidence to show their "objection" has merit. In a court of law, if you cannot show your "objection" is:

• relevent to the case
• logically conclusive
• is reasonably interpreted

the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) will throw it out as being "frivolous" and will not even allow it to be entered into the court record.

Simply not believing what someone says, is the same as thinking things for no reason. And in a formal debate, it's all about the "ability to reason".

 

[Circe]

... you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

Well --- what is the difference? Between a fact and an opinion.

I have come to think this is something of a Zen question. Senator Patrick Moynihan said we have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. But there is so much division over which facts are "true" (assuming there could be untrue facts) and which aren't that I suspect someone's facts are simply opinions that he really, really wants everyone to agree on so he can win his argument.

For instance, in another forum somebody repeatedly asserted that there have only been one or two cases of mass shootings using AR-15s. Someone would post data about many mass shootings in which AR-15s were used, greeted by silence, and a day later he is saying again, and clearly believing, that there have only been one or two such cases.

You could say, well, just don't argue with this guy. But it's a common occurance -- facts are opinions, opinions are facts. Consider that most of the world apparently believes that the Twin Towers were taken down by George Bush or Mossad or both. To them, these are facts, and they develop their arguments accordingly.

Facts are opinions someone particularly wants privileged, I suspect. What to do about this issue?

 

[Underhill]

... you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

Well --- what is the difference? Between a fact and an opinion.

I have come to think this is something of a Zen question. Senator Patrick Moynihan said we have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. But there is so much division over which facts are "true" (assuming there could be untrue facts) and which aren't that I suspect someone's facts are simply opinions that he really, really wants everyone to agree on so he can win his argument.

For instance, in another forum somebody repeatedly asserted that there have only been one or two cases of mass shootings using AR-15s. Someone would post data about many mass shootings in which AR-15s were used, greeted by silence, and a day later he is saying again, and clearly believing, that there have only been one or two such cases.

You could say, well, just don't argue with this guy. But it's a common occurance -- facts are opinions, opinions are facts. Consider that most of the world apparently believes that the Twin Towers were taken down by George Bush or Mossad or both. To them, these are facts, and they develop their arguments accordingly.

Facts are opinions someone particularly wants privileged, I suspect. What to do about this issue?

Yes, opinions are often stated as facts. That does not make them facts.

Facts can be measured and backed up most of the time. In some rare cases they cannot only because they were never quantified.

As an example, I recently mentioned the fact that in the golden age of the 50's, many times women and children were abused and these abuses were shoved under the carpet or ignored by society.

Now this is a factual statement as anyone who was around in those times will tell you. But the statistics can be tough to verify and quantify as the entire point was societal ignorance on the subject at hand...

So my point is, yes and no. And that's a fact!

 

[Circe]

Yes, opinions are often stated as facts. That does not make them facts.

Facts can be measured and backed up most of the time. In some rare cases they cannot only because they were never quantified.

As an example, I recently mentioned the fact that in the golden age of the 50's, many times women and children were abused and these abuses were shoved under the carpet or ignored by society.

Now this is a factual statement as anyone who was around in those times will tell you. But the statistics can be tough to verify and quantify as the entire point was societal ignorance on the subject at hand...

So my point is, yes and no. And that's a fact!

You would say it's a fact if it has been measured and that measurement can be cited.

If there is no way to cite anything which has not been measured, should people assert it as a fact? Your example is that women and children were frequently abused during the fifties (and before, same argument) but the whole point is that this was ignored by society, so there were no statistics.

Maybe we could use different forms of proof from one time or society than in another. For instance, climate change. There is said to have been a little Ice Age, from maybe 1350 to 1850, and a Medieval Warming Period earlier that allowed the temporary settlement of Greenland by Vikings; when it cooled again, they had to leave. There were no thermometer records, however. We could use the transitory settlement as evidence, and what they were able to grow; and perhaps records of the Thames and Rhine freezing and such for the later cooling.

There is some problem here with bad facts, which the climate change brouhaha has treated us to: lies, errors, propaganda that are promoted as fact but later generally discounted, like a Piltdown Man.

Opinions are often stated as fact: however, another problem is that facts are so often considered opinion. People believe their very own "facts" because they want to, whether they are true in any measurement sense or not. Without a referee, there is nothing to be done about this --- people have no basis for agreement or even for sensible argument if there is no common ground of fact. And there isn't: there is no common ground of reality. What is viewed as reality by some is considered lies, damned lies, and statistics by others.

I'm working on what personally to do about this persistent problem of the human condition.

 

[Foxfyre]

Something stated as fact on a message board should be supportable with reliable evidence or testimony from an authoritative source. Eye witness testimony is acceptable in any debate/argument but it can also be challenged as to whether the person is a reliable witness or whether he/she is in error or lying about it.

The same statement copied and repeated endlessly in the media, on message boards, etc. etc. etc. is NOT evidence that the information is correct. The truth of that is multiplied many times over if it is somebody else's opinion that is being copied and repeated endlessly, most especially when it is taken out of context or altered in any way.

And no matter how expert or credible the witness, how authoritative the opinion of the scientific group, how pretty or impressive the chart, graph, or other data used, there is always room to challenge the information, whether there are extenuating circumstances, whether there is motive to present conclusions in a certain way, and whether other facts support what appears to be.

Such is the foundaton of give and take in a formal debate, in a court trial, or in any exploration for the best truth available to us.

The person who wants to get it right is always going to be a much better debater than the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post whether he can defend his/her opinion or not.

And the worst debaters are those who are content to attack their opponent and don't care who is right or wrong. Not liking your opponent personally and insulting him/her personally gets you reprimanded in court and on the debate team. It doesn't earn you any points as a competent debater.

Any opinion worth having can be defended on its own merits without having to attack anybody else or his/her opinion. If you can't defend your opinion without referencing somebody else or putting somebody down, it is almost certain to be wrong.