What is "debate"? An FYI

[Foxfyre]

I know some feel that way bones. And are letting everybody know about it in no uncertain terms. But in looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted. You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--that wasn't the case a week ago--in all forums but the CDZ where none of those complaining about rules ever go anyway.

The ONLY new restriction I see is that you can't insult somebody in the Politics Forum without also including something on the topic. I really don't blow off how people feel about things, and I can appreciate how that would make the mods' job a lot more difficult. But I honestly can't see how that particular new rule--it isn't even a new one; it's an enforcement of an old one--really restricts anybody in any way. The only ones affected are those who like to throw out one line insults. Now they have to pause long enough to figure out how to include something re the topic. And I just can't see that as a terrible or oppressive thing.

Evenso, I have a lot of respect and affection for some of the people who do have a problem with it. Including you.

I am totally unaware of any other rules changes.

 

[strollingbones]

i have problems when an admin says selective group and doesnt define said group....

 

[Foxfyre]

i have problems when an admin says selective group and doesnt define said group....

Oh come on bones. That's not fair. You said it had become too restrictive without specifying what restrictions you were objecting to. What's good for the goose and all that. . . .

 

[cereal_killer]

~ Lets please get back on topic. Thank you... ~

 

[Foxfyre]

Whoops. Okay.

 

[midcan5]

Si Modo,

I'm sorry I missed this thread when it was first posted but I have a question, how is it every time I post something you disagree with I get a negative rep and the usual pejorative? There is no debate as you so nicely outlined above, did I miss something, can you explain.

mc5

 

[Amelia]

Si Modo,

I'm sorry I missed this thread when it was first posted but I have a question, how is it every time I post something you disagree with I get a negative rep and the usual pejorative? There is no debate as you so nicely outlined above, did I miss something, can you explain.

mc5

Does she neg you in the CDZ?

 

[Circe]

...looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted. You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--

!! Radical. Never saw THAT before! So.....there are whole forums full of people calling each other c*nt and n*gger and that is supposed to ATTRACT people?

I'm going to take a wild guess about what kind of people it would attract.......

Maybe it's a way to let the other forums provide feedstock. Numbers, and then the cream rises? Could be.

 

[Foxfyre]

...looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted. You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--

!! Radical. Never saw THAT before! So.....there are whole forums full of people calling each other c*nt and n*gger and that is supposed to ATTRACT people?

I'm going to take a wild guess about what kind of people it would attract.......

Maybe it's a way to let the other forums provide feedstock. Numbers, and then the cream rises? Could be.

In a sense. The point being that debate on USMB is really not restrictive at all. Free speech pretty much reigns everywhere with very few rules involving that and what there are seem to be reasonable.

As Underhill and I were discussing, it does get sticky at times, there will be misunderstandings, and people will get angry or irritated with each other. There are rep bullies who really enjoy neg repping anybody they disagree with or just don't like regardless of how competent or civil a post is put down. And I think that is unfortunate, but again, it's a free country.

Si Modo's outline in the OP here is how a formal debate should be conducted. Further discussion, at least on my part and some of the others, has been on how the formal rules need some flexibility and modification in the message board format. Evenso, intelligent and interesting discussions can be possible on a message board, even between two widely opposing people or groups if they stay on topic and the thread is not derailed by those who intend to derail it. And I have long accepted that there are intelligent people on message boards who use language I wouldn't use, but hey, whatever floats somebody's boat.

 

[strollingbones]

cereal killer says something and refuses to define it? what is that all about....you are the one who used the term select group now define it......you brought it up.....

 

[cereal_killer]

4 or 5 members SB

~Back on topic please~

 

[Si modo]

...looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted. You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--

!! Radical. Never saw THAT before! So.....there are whole forums full of people calling each other c*nt and n*gger and that is supposed to ATTRACT people?

I'm going to take a wild guess about what kind of people it would attract.......

Maybe it's a way to let the other forums provide feedstock. Numbers, and then the cream rises? Could be.

In a sense. The point being that debate on USMB is really not restrictive at all. Free speech pretty much reigns everywhere with very few rules involving that and what there are seem to be reasonable.

As Underhill and I were discussing, it does get sticky at times, there will be misunderstandings, and people will get angry or irritated with each other. There are rep bullies who really enjoy neg repping anybody they disagree with or just don't like regardless of how competent or civil a post is put down. And I think that is unfortunate, but again, it's a free country.

Si Modo's outline in the OP here is how a formal debate should be conducted. Further discussion, at least on my part and some of the others, has been on how the formal rules need some flexibility and modification in the message board format. Evenso, intelligent and interesting discussions can be possible on a message board, even between two widely opposing people or groups if they stay on topic and the thread is not derailed by those who intend to derail it. And I have long accepted that there are intelligent people on message boards who use language I wouldn't use, but hey, whatever floats somebody's boat.

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

I didn't mean it to be anything in the formal sense of debate.

 

[cereal_killer]

!! Radical. Never saw THAT before! So.....there are whole forums full of people calling each other c*nt and n*gger and that is supposed to ATTRACT people?

I'm going to take a wild guess about what kind of people it would attract.......

Maybe it's a way to let the other forums provide feedstock. Numbers, and then the cream rises? Could be.

In a sense. The point being that debate on USMB is really not restrictive at all. Free speech pretty much reigns everywhere with very few rules involving that and what there are seem to be reasonable.

As Underhill and I were discussing, it does get sticky at times, there will be misunderstandings, and people will get angry or irritated with each other. There are rep bullies who really enjoy neg repping anybody they disagree with or just don't like regardless of how competent or civil a post is put down. And I think that is unfortunate, but again, it's a free country.

Si Modo's outline in the OP here is how a formal debate should be conducted. Further discussion, at least on my part and some of the others, has been on how the formal rules need some flexibility and modification in the message board format. Evenso, intelligent and interesting discussions can be possible on a message board, even between two widely opposing people or groups if they stay on topic and the thread is not derailed by those who intend to derail it. And I have long accepted that there are intelligent people on message boards who use language I wouldn't use, but hey, whatever floats somebody's boat.

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

I didn't mean it to be anything in the formal sense of debate.

You're OP is excellent and it illustrates how a civil debate should take place between participants. Not sure why you say you shouldn't have used the word debate., I mean we are, after all, in the Debate Zone

 

[Si modo]

In a sense. The point being that debate on USMB is really not restrictive at all. Free speech pretty much reigns everywhere with very few rules involving that and what there are seem to be reasonable.

As Underhill and I were discussing, it does get sticky at times, there will be misunderstandings, and people will get angry or irritated with each other. There are rep bullies who really enjoy neg repping anybody they disagree with or just don't like regardless of how competent or civil a post is put down. And I think that is unfortunate, but again, it's a free country.

Si Modo's outline in the OP here is how a formal debate should be conducted. Further discussion, at least on my part and some of the others, has been on how the formal rules need some flexibility and modification in the message board format. Evenso, intelligent and interesting discussions can be possible on a message board, even between two widely opposing people or groups if they stay on topic and the thread is not derailed by those who intend to derail it. And I have long accepted that there are intelligent people on message boards who use language I wouldn't use, but hey, whatever floats somebody's boat.

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

I didn't mean it to be anything in the formal sense of debate.

You're OP is excellent and it illustrates how a civil debate should take place between participants. Not sure why you say you shouldn't have used the word debate., I mean we are, after all, in the Debate Zone

'tis true. We are.

But, after reviewing this thread it seems the word connotes some sort of formal activity (ie Forensics clubs, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.) to some, and I was just wanting to start with baby steps.

I think many need baby steps, but I am loving some of the input others have had in this thread (totally forgot about it). Very nice to see that there are many more who actually DO know something about it.

 

[Circe]

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

So what is debate? One thing it isn't, is grunting.

People do sort of need to use words in order to debate or discuss.

I have come to realize over the years that the one-line obscenity posts are a marker for "not too much available up top." It's not that they use the one-line, misspelled, ungrammatical, unpuncuated obscenity post as an occasional punchy relief: it's that this is the best they can do.

And they want their way and they want it now and they get real angry real quick because they never get any of that, except sometimes from another one-line poster.

This kind of post is the most common type, but it isn't debate, or worth much, or likely to result in good discussion or good fellowship, I find. It takes more words than many people have to develop an interesting argument. But it's better to wait for those.

 

[Si modo]

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

So what is debate? One thing it isn't, is grunting.

People do sort of need to use words in order to debate or discuss.

I have come to realize over the years that the one-line obscenity posts are a marker for "not too much available up top." It's not that they use the one-line, misspelled, ungrammatical, unpuncuated obscenity post as an occasional punchy relief: it's that this is the best they can do.

And they want their way and they want it now and they get real angry real quick because they never get any of that, except sometimes from another one-line poster.

This kind of post is the most common type, but it isn't debate, or worth much, or likely to result in good discussion or good fellowship, I find. It takes more words than many people have to develop an interesting argument. But it's better to wait for those.

I enjoy a good debate, which is why I have much respect for a few posters at USMB with whom I rarely agree.

Also, I enjoy good smack talk as it makes me laugh.

If I want the former, I can come here.

I'm a grown-up, and can make my own decisions about participating in or reading the latter. I don't need a nanny to control what I am exposed to.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

I didn't mean it to be anything in the formal sense of debate.

You're OP is excellent and it illustrates how a civil debate should take place between participants. Not sure why you say you shouldn't have used the word debate., I mean we are, after all, in the Debate Zone

'tis true. We are.

But, after reviewing this thread it seems the word connotes some sort of formal activity (ie Forensics clubs, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.) to some, and I was just wanting to start with baby steps.

I think many need baby steps, but I am loving some of the input others have had in this thread (totally forgot about it). Very nice to see that there are many more who actually DO know something about it.

All that is necessary is to know the principles involved, which you eloquently outlined. I do think it is necessary that the actual format will be adjusted in a message board discussion that will generally not be conducive to a formal debate because, with many participating, there is no way to express your whole point of view in an orderly premeditated organized fashion.

My debate coaches and my own style of mentoring debaters is to insist that they be able to argue all points of view before they take a side and try to make a case for a thesis. And of course, you don't always know whether you'll be assigned the pro or con on any given topic.

 

[cereal_killer]

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

I didn't mean it to be anything in the formal sense of debate.

You're OP is excellent and it illustrates how a civil debate should take place between participants. Not sure why you say you shouldn't have used the word debate., I mean we are, after all, in the Debate Zone

'tis true. We are.

But, after reviewing this thread it seems the word connotes some sort of formal activity (ie Forensics clubs, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.) to some, and I was just wanting to start with baby steps.

I think many need baby steps, but I am loving some of the input others have had in this thread (totally forgot about it). Very nice to see that there are many more who actually DO know something about it.

I think it's a great thread as well Si and have enjoyed going through it today. Well deserving of a sticky and a great topic/discussion

 

[editec]

What is a clean debate?

It has another name...it's called a discussion.

People bring up a point, or an issue and others comment on it, and NOT on the person who brought the issue to our attention.



Nobody will WIN the discussion because that isn't the point of having a discussion.

the point of discussing issues isn't to score points, but rather for everyone to perhaps come away from the discussion with more insight into the subject at hand.

I look forward to having discussions with many of you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

So what is debate? One thing it isn't, is grunting.

People do sort of need to use words in order to debate or discuss.

I have come to realize over the years that the one-line obscenity posts are a marker for "not too much available up top." It's not that they use the one-line, misspelled, ungrammatical, unpuncuated obscenity post as an occasional punchy relief: it's that this is the best they can do.

And they want their way and they want it now and they get real angry real quick because they never get any of that, except sometimes from another one-line poster.

This kind of post is the most common type, but it isn't debate, or worth much, or likely to result in good discussion or good fellowship, I find. It takes more words than many people have to develop an interesting argument. But it's better to wait for those.

I enjoy a good debate, which is why I have much respect for a few posters at USMB with whom I rarely agree.

Also, I enjoy good smack talk as it makes me laugh.

If I want the former, I can come here.

I'm a grown-up, and can make my own decisions about participating in or reading the latter. I don't need a nanny to control what I am exposed to.

I agree with this 100%. At the same time, I get really weary of what could have been really good discussions being totally derailed and/or turned into food fights by trolls who do it on purpose. And that too has driven so many really good potential members from the board who get tired of nothing BUT smackdown however entertaining that is for those who do like that kind of banter.

So somewhere in there should be a balance between unrestricted free speech and an expectation of consideration for others. I don't think it is a terrible thing that there is a CDZ. I don't think it is a terrible thing that drive by personal insults are removed from the Politics section. I would like for the politics forum to become more good discussion than troll threads. It hasn't been that for some time now.

I figure the trolls, numbnuts, and other exercises in futility will likely try to disrupt and destroy the new Bullring, but I'm certainly willing to wait and see on that too.

Meanwhile, I think this is a terrific thread and valuable to discuss what a good discussion is and what a competent argument looks like. I suspect a lot of members don't participate in such because they have never learned how. Once they learn how, I suspect many are actually pretty intelligent folks who would enjoy it.