What is "debate"? An FYI

[Underhill]

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.

Agreed.

 

[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.

Agreed.

LOL. And of course I thanked your post as evidence of your appreciation for great wisdom and acknowledgement of statement of fact.

Actually my entire post was exoressed opinion--except for the part about what is accepted as fact in formal debate or in a court of law. But my opinion I know is informed opinion and it is possible I could be considered to have credentials sufficient to make my 'expert' opinion credible as 'fact' in a court of law. I just can't make that case on a message board. (And it is quite possible I couldn't make that case in a court of law either. )

So a really quality message board discussion is sometimes not just a boring recitation of "facts", and certainly is not an exchange of personal insults, but is a give and take of opinion. The one who can make the most persuasive argument for a point of view, and such opinion cannot be discredited with 'fact' is the winner. Unless he or she is so unpopular, the argument will be dismissed because of who the messenger is.

I did like Loinboy's speech teacher's concept a lot:
"You could not state your point until you were able to
state the opposition's point back to them to their satisfaction."

In my opinion, it is not only an inability to do that, but the refusal to do that which is the primary reason for so many troll threads, food fights, and utter nonsense that so many utilize to entertain themselves with here. In judging formal debates, misstating your opponent's position was one of the worst infractions and cost you a lot of points.

 

[Underhill]

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.

Agreed.

LOL. And of course I thanked your post as evidence of your appreciation for great wisdom and acknowledgement of statement of fact.

Actually my entire post was exoressed opinion--except for the part about what is accepted as fact in formal debate or in a court of law. But my opinion I know is informed opinion and it is possible I could be considered to have credentials sufficient to make my 'expert' opinion credible as 'fact' in a court of law. I just can't make that case on a message board. (And it is quite possible I couldn't make that case in a court of law either. )

So a really quality message board discussion is sometimes not just a boring recitation of "facts", and certainly is not an exchange of personal insults, but is a give and take of opinion. The one who can make the most persuasive argument for a point of view, and such opinion cannot be discredited with 'fact' is the winner. Unless he or she is so unpopular, the argument will be dismissed because of who the messenger is.

I did like Loinboy's speech teacher's concept a lot:
"You could not state your point until you were able to
state the opposition's point back to them to their satisfaction."

In my opinion, it is not only an inability to do that, but the refusal to do that which is the primary reason for so many troll threads, food fights, and utter nonsense that so many utilize to entertain themselves with here. In judging formal debates, misstating your opponent's position was one of the worst infractions and cost you a lot of points.

I was going to thank you but then I read the bit about "the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post " and thought it inappropriate!

 

[Foxfyre]

Agreed.

LOL. And of course I thanked your post as evidence of your appreciation for great wisdom and acknowledgement of statement of fact.

Actually my entire post was exoressed opinion--except for the part about what is accepted as fact in formal debate or in a court of law. But my opinion I know is informed opinion and it is possible I could be considered to have credentials sufficient to make my 'expert' opinion credible as 'fact' in a court of law. I just can't make that case on a message board. (And it is quite possible I couldn't make that case in a court of law either. )

So a really quality message board discussion is sometimes not just a boring recitation of "facts", and certainly is not an exchange of personal insults, but is a give and take of opinion. The one who can make the most persuasive argument for a point of view, and such opinion cannot be discredited with 'fact' is the winner. Unless he or she is so unpopular, the argument will be dismissed because of who the messenger is.

I did like Loinboy's speech teacher's concept a lot:
"You could not state your point until you were able to
state the opposition's point back to them to their satisfaction."

In my opinion, it is not only an inability to do that, but the refusal to do that which is the primary reason for so many troll threads, food fights, and utter nonsense that so many utilize to entertain themselves with here. In judging formal debates, misstating your opponent's position was one of the worst infractions and cost you a lot of points.

I was going to thank you but then I read the bit about "the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post " and thought it inappropriate!

It isn't inappropriate if you value honest intelligent debate. Fooling others into believing you know what you are talking about is NOT the same thing as knowing what you are talking about. Or being judgmental and hateful in the same way as another is NOT constructive debate.

Just because others thank your post does not make it a good post based on good information. And those who are intellectually honest would rather BE right than just have others approve of something they said.

I am honored, however, when I post something I absolutely have reason to believe is the truth, and others I admire and value their judgment thank me for posting it. That kind of affirmation feels really good.

And those who go out of their way to post something hateful or critical of another member, however untrue, will almost inevitably be thanked by their cronies and toadies. Such is not the substance of good debate.

 

[Underhill]

LOL. And of course I thanked your post as evidence of your appreciation for great wisdom and acknowledgement of statement of fact.

Actually my entire post was exoressed opinion--except for the part about what is accepted as fact in formal debate or in a court of law. But my opinion I know is informed opinion and it is possible I could be considered to have credentials sufficient to make my 'expert' opinion credible as 'fact' in a court of law. I just can't make that case on a message board. (And it is quite possible I couldn't make that case in a court of law either. )

So a really quality message board discussion is sometimes not just a boring recitation of "facts", and certainly is not an exchange of personal insults, but is a give and take of opinion. The one who can make the most persuasive argument for a point of view, and such opinion cannot be discredited with 'fact' is the winner. Unless he or she is so unpopular, the argument will be dismissed because of who the messenger is.

I did like Loinboy's speech teacher's concept a lot:
"You could not state your point until you were able to
state the opposition's point back to them to their satisfaction."

In my opinion, it is not only an inability to do that, but the refusal to do that which is the primary reason for so many troll threads, food fights, and utter nonsense that so many utilize to entertain themselves with here. In judging formal debates, misstating your opponent's position was one of the worst infractions and cost you a lot of points.

I was going to thank you but then I read the bit about "the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post " and thought it inappropriate!

It isn't inappropriate if you value honest intelligent debate. Fooling others into believing you know what you are talking about is NOT the same thing as knowing what you are talking about. Or being judgmental and hateful in the same way as another is NOT constructive debate.

Just because others thank your post does not make it a good post based on good information. And those who are intellectually honest would rather BE right than just have others approve of something they said.

I am honored, however, when I post something I absolutely have reason to believe is the truth, and others I admire and value their judgment thank me for posting it. That kind of affirmation feels really good.

And those who go out of their way to post something hateful or critical of another member, however untrue, will almost inevitably be thanked by their cronies and toadies. Such is not the substance of good debate.

I agree. Meant that to be funny more than anything...

We are speaking the same language.

Nothing is more frustrating to me than trying to have a meaningful discussion and someone continually misinterpreting what I say (often intentionally) or going negative. It's like the conversation has reverted to elementary schoolyard tactics.

This isn't to say I am perfect on that front. I have been known to throw a jab from time to time (usually in response to idiocy). But I certainly don't make it a habit.

 

[PaulS1950]

What is a fact? - it is an idea that is supported by evidence but not necessarily a truth.
ie: In 1492CE it was a fact that a man could not build a machine with which to fly through the air.
... Today it is a fact the man can build a machine with which to fly through the air.

What is truth? - Truth is an idea that has always been, is now, and always will be true and can be substantiated.
ie: Hydrogen is the lightest element.

A debate is the free and logical exchange of ideas, opinions, facts and truths in the search for understanding of a topic for those involved and those who listen.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was going to thank you but then I read the bit about "the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post " and thought it inappropriate!

It isn't inappropriate if you value honest intelligent debate. Fooling others into believing you know what you are talking about is NOT the same thing as knowing what you are talking about. Or being judgmental and hateful in the same way as another is NOT constructive debate.

Just because others thank your post does not make it a good post based on good information. And those who are intellectually honest would rather BE right than just have others approve of something they said.

I am honored, however, when I post something I absolutely have reason to believe is the truth, and others I admire and value their judgment thank me for posting it. That kind of affirmation feels really good.

And those who go out of their way to post something hateful or critical of another member, however untrue, will almost inevitably be thanked by their cronies and toadies. Such is not the substance of good debate.

I agree. Meant that to be funny more than anything...

We are speaking the same language.

Nothing is more frustrating to me than trying to have a meaningful discussion and someone continually misinterpreting what I say (often intentionally) or going negative. It's like the conversation has reverted to elementary schoolyard tactics.

This isn't to say I am perfect on that front. I have been known to throw a jab from time to time (usually in response to idiocy). But I certainly don't make it a habit.

None of us are perfect. And we should all make allowances for those times somebody words something awkwardly, or forgets to include a qualifier that makes their comment read differently than intended. The good debater will acknowledge the flawed post and correct it. The honorable debaters will allow the other the correction.

The numbnut, after saying something really dumb, will do his/her damndest to defend it. And that usually results in the thread going off the tracks. Or he or she will continue to pull the 'mistake' out of the pack and quote it over and over as what the other member said. Once a member is put into the position of spending his/her time defending a comment that never should have to be defended, the wheels often come off that thread too.

But a thread is going nowhere if Debater #1 says: "A 16 trillion dollar debt is unacceptable" and the reponse from Debater #2 is "You want kids to starve and old folks to be thrown out into the streets."

. . . .or. . . .

Debater #1: Everything wasn't wrong with the 50's and we should not be afraid to encourage those things that were good.

Debater #2: Debater #1 thinks the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages.

Enough interchanges like that tend to make message boards a really unattractive diversion.

 

[Underhill]

It isn't inappropriate if you value honest intelligent debate. Fooling others into believing you know what you are talking about is NOT the same thing as knowing what you are talking about. Or being judgmental and hateful in the same way as another is NOT constructive debate.

Just because others thank your post does not make it a good post based on good information. And those who are intellectually honest would rather BE right than just have others approve of something they said.

I am honored, however, when I post something I absolutely have reason to believe is the truth, and others I admire and value their judgment thank me for posting it. That kind of affirmation feels really good.

And those who go out of their way to post something hateful or critical of another member, however untrue, will almost inevitably be thanked by their cronies and toadies. Such is not the substance of good debate.

I agree. Meant that to be funny more than anything...

We are speaking the same language.

Nothing is more frustrating to me than trying to have a meaningful discussion and someone continually misinterpreting what I say (often intentionally) or going negative. It's like the conversation has reverted to elementary schoolyard tactics.

This isn't to say I am perfect on that front. I have been known to throw a jab from time to time (usually in response to idiocy). But I certainly don't make it a habit.

None of us are perfect. And we should all make allowances for those times somebody words something awkwardly, or forgets to include a qualifier that makes their comment read differently than intended. The good debater will acknowledge the flawed post and correct it. The honorable debaters will allow the other the correction.

The numbnut, after saying something really dumb, will do his/her damndest to defend it. And that usually results in the thread going off the tracks. Or he or she will continue to pull the 'mistake' out of the pack and quote it over and over as what the other member said. Once a member is put into the position of spending his/her time defending a comment that never should have to be defended, the wheels often come off that thread too.

But a thread is going nowhere if Debater #1 says: "A 16 trillion dollar debt is unacceptable" and the reponse from Debater #2 is "You want kids to starve and old folks to be thrown out into the streets."

. . . .or. . . .

Debater #1: Everything wasn't wrong with the 50's and we should not be afraid to encourage those things that were good.

Debater #2: Debater #1 thinks the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages.

Enough interchanges like that tend to make message boards a really unattractive diversion.

Sure, if such a thing as your second example actually happened it would be problematic. However, if debater 2 were involved in a discussion with multiple people and instead said,

" Many on your side of the debate think the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages."

, and was then misquoted in multiple threads, that would equally be annoying, wouldn't you think?

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree. Meant that to be funny more than anything...

We are speaking the same language.

Nothing is more frustrating to me than trying to have a meaningful discussion and someone continually misinterpreting what I say (often intentionally) or going negative. It's like the conversation has reverted to elementary schoolyard tactics.

This isn't to say I am perfect on that front. I have been known to throw a jab from time to time (usually in response to idiocy). But I certainly don't make it a habit.

None of us are perfect. And we should all make allowances for those times somebody words something awkwardly, or forgets to include a qualifier that makes their comment read differently than intended. The good debater will acknowledge the flawed post and correct it. The honorable debaters will allow the other the correction.

The numbnut, after saying something really dumb, will do his/her damndest to defend it. And that usually results in the thread going off the tracks. Or he or she will continue to pull the 'mistake' out of the pack and quote it over and over as what the other member said. Once a member is put into the position of spending his/her time defending a comment that never should have to be defended, the wheels often come off that thread too.

But a thread is going nowhere if Debater #1 says: "A 16 trillion dollar debt is unacceptable" and the reponse from Debater #2 is "You want kids to starve and old folks to be thrown out into the streets."

. . . .or. . . .

Debater #1: Everything wasn't wrong with the 50's and we should not be afraid to encourage those things that were good.

Debater #2: Debater #1 thinks the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages.

Enough interchanges like that tend to make message boards a really unattractive diversion.

Sure, if such a thing as your second example actually happened it would be problematic. However, if debater 2 were involved in a discussion with multiple people and instead said,

" Many on your side of the debate think the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages."

, and was then misquoted in multiple threads, that would equally be annoying, wouldn't you think?

I would challenge the statement. I would ask for the names of those who 'think the 50's were perfect" or any other valid evidence such was the case. And if the member could not produce the requested information, I would call his statement in error and unsupportable. Because it would be. And in an honest debate, that would end the matter.

On the other hand, if he said "In my opinion, I think most on your side think the 50's were perfect", I could honestly counter that I have never encountered anybody on my side or any other side who think the 50's were perfect; therefore unless you have something other than your opinion to support that, I have to believe you are wrong about that.

And that should end it.

Those who deliberately and intentionally misquote others are dishonest trolls. And those who keep repeating the same wrong dumb statement, are just. . . .well. . .dumb.

 

[Underhill]

None of us are perfect. And we should all make allowances for those times somebody words something awkwardly, or forgets to include a qualifier that makes their comment read differently than intended. The good debater will acknowledge the flawed post and correct it. The honorable debaters will allow the other the correction.

The numbnut, after saying something really dumb, will do his/her damndest to defend it. And that usually results in the thread going off the tracks. Or he or she will continue to pull the 'mistake' out of the pack and quote it over and over as what the other member said. Once a member is put into the position of spending his/her time defending a comment that never should have to be defended, the wheels often come off that thread too.

But a thread is going nowhere if Debater #1 says: "A 16 trillion dollar debt is unacceptable" and the reponse from Debater #2 is "You want kids to starve and old folks to be thrown out into the streets."

. . . .or. . . .

Debater #1: Everything wasn't wrong with the 50's and we should not be afraid to encourage those things that were good.

Debater #2: Debater #1 thinks the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages.

Enough interchanges like that tend to make message boards a really unattractive diversion.

Sure, if such a thing as your second example actually happened it would be problematic. However, if debater 2 were involved in a discussion with multiple people and instead said,

" Many on your side of the debate think the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages."

, and was then misquoted in multiple threads, that would equally be annoying, wouldn't you think?

I would challenge the statement. I would ask for the names of those who 'think the 50's were perfect" or any other valid evidence such was the case. And if the member could not produce the requested information, I would call his statement in error and unsupportable. Because it would be. And in an honest debate, that would end the matter.

On the other hand, if he said "In my opinion, I think most on your side think the 50's were perfect", I could honestly counter that I have never encountered anybody on my side or any other side who think the 50's were perfect; therefore unless you have something other than your opinion to support that, I have to believe you are wrong about that.

And that should end it.

Those who deliberately and intentionally misquote others are dishonest trolls. And those who keep repeating the same wrong dumb statement, are just. . . .well. . .dumb.

But there again remember in an earlier post when it was pointed out how important it is to understand the view of the person you are debating?

The person you are speaking of obviously was making a general statement using a literary exaggeration. 'Perfect' obviously meaning they have an exaggerated view of how good things were.

But being dumb, what the fuck would I know?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure, if such a thing as your second example actually happened it would be problematic. However, if debater 2 were involved in a discussion with multiple people and instead said,

" Many on your side of the debate think the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages."

, and was then misquoted in multiple threads, that would equally be annoying, wouldn't you think?

I would challenge the statement. I would ask for the names of those who 'think the 50's were perfect" or any other valid evidence such was the case. And if the member could not produce the requested information, I would call his statement in error and unsupportable. Because it would be. And in an honest debate, that would end the matter.

On the other hand, if he said "In my opinion, I think most on your side think the 50's were perfect", I could honestly counter that I have never encountered anybody on my side or any other side who think the 50's were perfect; therefore unless you have something other than your opinion to support that, I have to believe you are wrong about that.

And that should end it.

Those who deliberately and intentionally misquote others are dishonest trolls. And those who keep repeating the same wrong dumb statement, are just. . . .well. . .dumb.

But there again remember in an earlier post when it was pointed out how important it is to understand the view of the person you are debating?

The person you are speaking of obviously was making a general statement using a literary exaggeration. 'Perfect' obviously meaning they have an exaggerated view of how good things were.

But being dumb, what the fuck would I know?

It is not my job in a debate to decipher the underlying intent or point of view of the other. If I take literally a comment that you make, it is incumbant upon you to explain that you intended the remark as exaggeration. And if you do, then if I am an honorable debater, I will accept that.

Now for sure, some comments are so obviously intended as sarcasm or as humor, any intelligent person would recognize it as such.

But a comment of say accusing a group of thinking the 50's was perfect does not necessary fall into that category unless there has been some banter about that leading into it.

On a message board, we do not have the advantage of vocal inflection and hand gestures, and body language to qualify a remark that we don't mean to be taken literally. It is therefore necessary that any qualifications need to be verbally expressed as the reader cannot always know us well enough to know what we do and not not intend to be taken literally.

 

[Underhill]

I would challenge the statement. I would ask for the names of those who 'think the 50's were perfect" or any other valid evidence such was the case. And if the member could not produce the requested information, I would call his statement in error and unsupportable. Because it would be. And in an honest debate, that would end the matter.

On the other hand, if he said "In my opinion, I think most on your side think the 50's were perfect", I could honestly counter that I have never encountered anybody on my side or any other side who think the 50's were perfect; therefore unless you have something other than your opinion to support that, I have to believe you are wrong about that.

And that should end it.

Those who deliberately and intentionally misquote others are dishonest trolls. And those who keep repeating the same wrong dumb statement, are just. . . .well. . .dumb.

But there again remember in an earlier post when it was pointed out how important it is to understand the view of the person you are debating?

The person you are speaking of obviously was making a general statement using a literary exaggeration. 'Perfect' obviously meaning they have an exaggerated view of how good things were.

But being dumb, what the fuck would I know?

It is not my job in a debate to decipher the underlying intent or point of view of the other. If I take literally a comment that you make, it is incumbant upon you to explain that you intended the remark as exaggeration. And if you do, then if I am an honorable debater, I will accept that.

Now for sure, some comments are so obviously intended as sarcasm or as humor, any intelligent person would recognize it as such.

But a comment of say accusing a group of thinking the 50's was perfect does not necessary fall into that category unless there has been some banter about that leading into it.

On a message board, we do not have the advantage of vocal inflection and hand gestures, and body language to qualify a remark that we don't mean to be taken literally. It is therefore necessary that any qualifications need to be verbally expressed as the reader cannot always know us well enough to know what we do and not not intend to be taken literally.

Yes, yes I know all that.

But here is the thing. When I say someone thinks an entire era is perfect, I would say that's obviously an exaggeration as nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever been perfect on the surface of the planet and everyone knows this to be the case.

I might be wrong. But I doubt it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But there again remember in an earlier post when it was pointed out how important it is to understand the view of the person you are debating?

The person you are speaking of obviously was making a general statement using a literary exaggeration. 'Perfect' obviously meaning they have an exaggerated view of how good things were.

But being dumb, what the fuck would I know?

It is not my job in a debate to decipher the underlying intent or point of view of the other. If I take literally a comment that you make, it is incumbant upon you to explain that you intended the remark as exaggeration. And if you do, then if I am an honorable debater, I will accept that.

Now for sure, some comments are so obviously intended as sarcasm or as humor, any intelligent person would recognize it as such.

But a comment of say accusing a group of thinking the 50's was perfect does not necessary fall into that category unless there has been some banter about that leading into it.

On a message board, we do not have the advantage of vocal inflection and hand gestures, and body language to qualify a remark that we don't mean to be taken literally. It is therefore necessary that any qualifications need to be verbally expressed as the reader cannot always know us well enough to know what we do and not not intend to be taken literally.

Yes, yes I know all that.

But here is the thing. When I say someone thinks an entire era is perfect, I would say that's obviously an exaggeration as nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever been perfect on the surface of the planet and everyone knows this to be the case.

I might be wrong. But I doubt it.

Yeah, I think you're wrong. I think there are those who think that if I say I don't want my taxes raised, they interpret that as I think all taxes are bad or I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

There are those who think that if I promote a loving two-parent family as the very best circumstance for rearing children that I am denigrating single parents or saying single parents suck. (Present company included )

There are those who think that if I see less regulation as a means of promoting ecnomic growth that I think everything should be deregulated.

There are those who think that if I say the EPA oversteps its authority or goes overboard that I think people should be allowed to pollute the air, water, soil at will.

There are those who think that if I think a person should be allowed to have a cigarette in his own home as a matter of personal choice that I am in favor of people getting lung cancer.

I think we cannot assume that anybody will interpret what we say as we intend.

 

[Underhill]

It is not my job in a debate to decipher the underlying intent or point of view of the other. If I take literally a comment that you make, it is incumbant upon you to explain that you intended the remark as exaggeration. And if you do, then if I am an honorable debater, I will accept that.

Now for sure, some comments are so obviously intended as sarcasm or as humor, any intelligent person would recognize it as such.

But a comment of say accusing a group of thinking the 50's was perfect does not necessary fall into that category unless there has been some banter about that leading into it.

On a message board, we do not have the advantage of vocal inflection and hand gestures, and body language to qualify a remark that we don't mean to be taken literally. It is therefore necessary that any qualifications need to be verbally expressed as the reader cannot always know us well enough to know what we do and not not intend to be taken literally.

Yes, yes I know all that.

But here is the thing. When I say someone thinks an entire era is perfect, I would say that's obviously an exaggeration as nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever been perfect on the surface of the planet and everyone knows this to be the case.

I might be wrong. But I doubt it.

Yeah, I think you're wrong. I think there are those who think that if I say I don't want my taxes raised, they interpret that as I think all taxes are bad or I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

There are those who think that if I promote a loving two-parent family as the very best circumstance for rearing children that I am denigrating single parents or saying single parents suck. (Present company included )

There are those who think that if I see less regulation as a means of promoting ecnomic growth that I think everything should be deregulated.

There are those who think that if I say the EPA oversteps its authority or goes overboard that I think people should be allowed to pollute the air, water, soil at will.

There are those who think that if I think a person should be allowed to have a cigarette in his own home as a matter of personal choice that I am in favor of people getting lung cancer.

I think we cannot assume that anybody will interpret what we say as we intend.

Maybe you are right. But I thought I was talking with someone who would interpret things as I intended. I apologize if I was wrong.

Anyway, we've wasted enough time and energy on this divergence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, yes I know all that.

But here is the thing. When I say someone thinks an entire era is perfect, I would say that's obviously an exaggeration as nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever been perfect on the surface of the planet and everyone knows this to be the case.

I might be wrong. But I doubt it.

Yeah, I think you're wrong. I think there are those who think that if I say I don't want my taxes raised, they interpret that as I think all taxes are bad or I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

There are those who think that if I promote a loving two-parent family as the very best circumstance for rearing children that I am denigrating single parents or saying single parents suck. (Present company included )

There are those who think that if I see less regulation as a means of promoting ecnomic growth that I think everything should be deregulated.

There are those who think that if I say the EPA oversteps its authority or goes overboard that I think people should be allowed to pollute the air, water, soil at will.

There are those who think that if I think a person should be allowed to have a cigarette in his own home as a matter of personal choice that I am in favor of people getting lung cancer.

I think we cannot assume that anybody will interpret what we say as we intend.

Maybe you are right. But I thought I was talking with someone who would interpret things as I intended. I apologize if I was wrong.

Anyway, we've wasted enough time and energy on this divergence.

It's always safest not to assume. (There's an urban definition out there for 'assume' )

But much of what was said here I think is important and could be helpful on a thread devoted to what is effective debate. To give people benefit of the doubtm and to ask for clarification if there is any doubt about intent, can avoid a lot of unnecessary disagreement. When we inadvertently leave out a qualifier or the smiley for humor or otherwise write something we did not intend, we cannot blame those for taking us at face value in what we did write. And in a civil debate, when we realize we misspoke and correct it, it helps if others understand that this happens and lets us off the hook for the unintended statement.

And I will say Underhlll, that despite discussions that contain a lot of emotional content and can be some of the most polarizing message board subject matter, and though we have disagreed on various points, you have kept it civil and intelligent.

For what it is worth, I dub thee a worthy debater.

 

[Underhill]

Yeah, I think you're wrong. I think there are those who think that if I say I don't want my taxes raised, they interpret that as I think all taxes are bad or I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

There are those who think that if I promote a loving two-parent family as the very best circumstance for rearing children that I am denigrating single parents or saying single parents suck. (Present company included )

There are those who think that if I see less regulation as a means of promoting ecnomic growth that I think everything should be deregulated.

There are those who think that if I say the EPA oversteps its authority or goes overboard that I think people should be allowed to pollute the air, water, soil at will.

There are those who think that if I think a person should be allowed to have a cigarette in his own home as a matter of personal choice that I am in favor of people getting lung cancer.

I think we cannot assume that anybody will interpret what we say as we intend.

Maybe you are right. But I thought I was talking with someone who would interpret things as I intended. I apologize if I was wrong.

Anyway, we've wasted enough time and energy on this divergence.

It's always safest not to assume. (There's an urban definition out there for 'assume' )

But much of what was said here I think is important and could be helpful on a thread devoted to what is effective debate. To give people benefit of the doubtm and to ask for clarification if there is any doubt about intent, can avoid a lot of unnecessary disagreement. When we inadvertently leave out a qualifier or the smiley for humor or otherwise write something we did not intend, we cannot blame those for taking us at face value in what we did write. And in a civil debate, when we realize we misspoke and correct it, it helps if others understand that this happens and lets us off the hook for the unintended statement.

And I will say Underhlll, that despite discussions that contain a lot of emotional content and can be some of the most polarizing message board subject matter, and though we have disagreed on various points, you have kept it civil and intelligent.

For what it is worth, I dub thee a worthy debater.

Why thank you fine sir. And you as well.

We better move on before the proverbial 'they' labels us as soft targets....

 

[Circe]

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions.

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years. But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions.

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years. But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!

I am a member on a couple of boards that tried the 'invitatiion only' concept and solicited only conversationalists/debaters who would agree to strict rules of civility and decorum and it produced a congenial, supportive, and pleasant environment. Unfortunately, it also produced a community too small to be really active. There was so much lapse of time between posts that people got bored and went elsewhere. Threads couldn't quite get off the ground and quickly died.

But it was civil.

Hannity has a pretty good, very active, very successful board. Those who want to be uncivil in their posting hate it and put it down while those who prefer a more civil discourse like it. But for whatever reason, Hannity is not as successful in building a strong sense of community as USMB has been. So I check in over there every now and then just to see what's going on. But I spend most of my on line message board time here.

But I have hated to see people I really enjoyed being driven elsewhere due to the uncivility and some sometimes truly malicious hatefulness here. And now we are seeing people leave, boycott forums, and try to get themselves banned to make a statement I guess because of efforts to make it more civil. And some of those I will miss a lot too.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But the board remains pretty healthy it seems. Lots and lots of active threads.

Bottom line for me is whether I can participate how I prefer to participate and enjoy the activity on a message board. As long as I can it is all good. When it becomes too frustrating or unpleasant, I leave. It's great to live in a free country.

And I really REALLY don't want the government to start regulating message boards.

 

[cereal_killer]

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions.

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years. But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions.

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years. But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!

I am a member on a couple of boards that tried the 'invitatiion only' concept and solicited only conversationalists/debaters who would agree to strict rules of civility and decorum and it produced a congenial, supportive, and pleasant environment. Unfortunately, it also produced a community too small to be really active. There was so much lapse of time between posts that people got bored and went elsewhere. Threads couldn't quite get off the ground and quickly died.

But it was civil.

Hannity has a pretty good, very active, very successful board. Those who want to be uncivil in their posting hate it and put it down while those who prefer a more civil discourse like it. But for whatever reason, Hannity is not as successful in building a strong sense of community as USMB has been. So I check in over there every now and then just to see what's going on. But I spend most of my on line message board time here.

But I have hated to see people I really enjoyed being driven elsewhere due to the uncivility and some sometimes truly malicious hatefulness here. And now we are seeing people leave, boycott forums, and try to get themselves banned to make a statement I guess because of efforts to make it more civil. And some of those I will miss a lot too.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But the board remains pretty healthy it seems. Lots and lots of active threads.

Bottom line for me is whether I can participate how I prefer to participate and enjoy the activity on a message board. As long as I can it is all good. When it becomes too frustrating or unpleasant, I leave. It's great to live in a free country.

And I really REALLY don't want the government to start regulating message boards.

I'm glad both of you find this section of value and choose to participate in it. I believe it is a great forum and will thrive even more as we move forward. We are in the process of cleaning up USMessageBoard and making it a forum that will accomodate everyone, rather than a select group.

Enjoy your stay here and I thank you for being an instrumental part of what will be an incredible forum.

 

[strollingbones]

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions.

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years. But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions.

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years. But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!

I am a member on a couple of boards that tried the 'invitatiion only' concept and solicited only conversationalists/debaters who would agree to strict rules of civility and decorum and it produced a congenial, supportive, and pleasant environment. Unfortunately, it also produced a community too small to be really active. There was so much lapse of time between posts that people got bored and went elsewhere. Threads couldn't quite get off the ground and quickly died.

But it was civil.

Hannity has a pretty good, very active, very successful board. Those who want to be uncivil in their posting hate it and put it down while those who prefer a more civil discourse like it. But for whatever reason, Hannity is not as successful in building a strong sense of community as USMB has been. So I check in over there every now and then just to see what's going on. But I spend most of my on line message board time here.

But I have hated to see people I really enjoyed being driven elsewhere due to the uncivility and some sometimes truly malicious hatefulness here. And now we are seeing people leave, boycott forums, and try to get themselves banned to make a statement I guess because of efforts to make it more civil. And some of those I will miss a lot too.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But the board remains pretty healthy it seems. Lots and lots of active threads.

Bottom line for me is whether I can participate how I prefer to participate and enjoy the activity on a message board. As long as I can it is all good. When it becomes too frustrating or unpleasant, I leave. It's great to live in a free country.

And I really REALLY don't want the government to start regulating message boards.

I'm glad both of you find this section of value and choose to participate in it. I believe it is a great forum and will thrive even more as we move forward. We are in the process of cleaning up USMessageBoard and making it a forum that will accomodate everyone, rather than a select group.

Enjoy your stay here and I thank you for being an instrumental part of what will be an incredible forum.

which select group would that be? this was a great forum till suddenly it got restrictive, to restrictive.