CDZ What is the criteria for "clean" debate.

[threader]

That might be interesting to know. But while I am here, consider this. I realize I am asking the wrong people, but was the French Revolution justified? For this next question, I am asking the right people. Was the American revolution justified? Just imagine in either of those cases they had computers and could join political forums. I wish this was the type of forum where the French peasants could discuss killing the aristrocracy and overthrowing their government. Or I wish this was the type of forum that would allow Americans who want to be free to discuss getting rid of English rule. By the means that were necessary. Violence!

Thomas Jefferson once basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I wish there was a forum where people could discuss doing what one of our founding fathers said would be necessary. Instead of having 'clean" debate.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What is the criteria for "clean" debate

Ostensibly, this: Guidelines for the Clean Debate Forum. As a practical matter, focusing one's remarks on the explicitly stated topic of discussion in an OP appears not to be it, especially with regard to the normative or positive nature of a politician's behavior and remarks. I cannot tell you how often I encounter opening posts (OPs) that discuss Party A and people respond with some sort of tu quoque remark about one or more different individual's behavior rather than with a remark that defends or supports Party A's behavior/statements on the merit of the statement itself. The result, time and time again, is that the thread gets derailed or devolves into a discussion about something other than what was introduced in the OP.

The reality is that debate here is simply isn't debate. It's banter. Debate calls for one to take a an a position and argue affirmatively or negatively on merit. (See also: Guide to Public Forum Debate) That rarely happens here.

 

[Fishlore]

Advocating the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence is against the law. All countries have something similar on the books for obvious reasons.

Well, perhaps the reasons aren't obvious to everyone. Jefferson was enamored of an extreme Whig idea that rights such as free speech, property etc. came from God, not governments. Governments, according to this theory, were mere human structures set up to protect those rights. The idea is spelled out with the label "self-evident" in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

Attractive as the idea is, it fails to pass either theological or philosophical muster and practically no one in the Constitutional Convention took it seriously. Adams referred to Jefferson's "sublimated ideas" and his colleagues gave him the sobriquet of Mad Tom.

The undeniable fact is that rights come from human society, not divine intervention, and government is both creator and definer of whatever rights the society has on offer.. Self-preservation is the first law of governments as well as of nature. If you want to discuss violent overthrow of the government, you better do it in secure privacy.

 

[threader]

What is the criteria for "clean" debate

Ostensibly, this: Guidelines for the Clean Debate Forum. As a practical matter, focusing one's remarks on the explicitly stated topic of discussion in an OP appears not to be it, especially with regard to the normative or positive nature of a politician's behavior and remarks. I cannot tell you how often I encounter opening posts (OPs) that discuss Party A and people respond with some sort of tu quoque remark about one or more different individual's behavior rather than with a remark that defends or supports Party A's behavior/statements on the merit of the statement itself. The result, time and time again, is that the thread gets derailed or devolves into a discussion about something other than what was introduced in the OP.

The reality is that debate here is simply isn't debate. It's banter. Debate calls for one to take a an a position and argue affirmatively or negatively on merit. (See also: Guide to Public Forum Debate) That rarely happens here.

I know what debate is. I also know that what should be debated isn't allowed. But it should be.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What is the criteria for "clean" debate

Ostensibly, this: Guidelines for the Clean Debate Forum. As a practical matter, focusing one's remarks on the explicitly stated topic of discussion in an OP appears not to be it, especially with regard to the normative or positive nature of a politician's behavior and remarks. I cannot tell you how often I encounter opening posts (OPs) that discuss Party A and people respond with some sort of tu quoque remark about one or more different individual's behavior rather than with a remark that defends or supports Party A's behavior/statements on the merit of the statement itself. The result, time and time again, is that the thread gets derailed or devolves into a discussion about something other than what was introduced in the OP.

The reality is that debate here is simply isn't debate. It's banter. Debate calls for one to take a an a position and argue affirmatively or negatively on merit. (See also: Guide to Public Forum Debate) That rarely happens here.

I know what debate is. I also know that what should be debated isn't allowed. But it should be.

????

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Someone left a basement window cracked somewhere...

 

[Mousterian]

Xelor, you have, in your own way, derailed the thread, not such a bad thing.
Limiting the scope of debate can be very useful, and we must be careful to stick to pertinent, or at least allegorical statements, but not too tightly...

 

[threader]

Advocating the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence is against the law. All countries have something similar on the books for obvious reasons.

Well, perhaps the reasons aren't obvious to everyone. Jefferson was enamored of an extreme Whig idea that rights such as free speech, property etc. came from God, not governments. Governments, according to this theory, were mere human structures set up to protect those rights. The idea is spelled out with the label "self-evident" in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

Attractive as the idea is, it fails to pass either theological or philosophical muster and practically no one in the Constitutional Convention took it seriously. Adams referred to Jefferson's "sublimated ideas" and his colleagues gave him the sobriquet of Mad Tom.

The undeniable fact is that rights come from human society, not divine intervention, and government is both creator and definer of whatever rights the society has on offer.. Self-preservation is the first law of governments as well as of nature. If you want to discuss violent overthrow of the government, you better do it in secure privacy.

How often have I seen people attacking the person and not the principle. It disgusts me. He may not have been perfect. But what he said was right on the mark. From time to time, the garbage needs to be removed. Because tyranny flourishes under freedom.

 

[threader]

Xelor, you have, in your own way, derailed the thread, not such a bad thing.
Limiting the scope of debate can be very useful, and we must be careful to stick to pertinent, or at least allegorical statements, but not too tightly...

The Monty Python verbal abuse clinic would be more apt.

 

[forkup]

That might be interesting to know. But while I am here, consider this. I realize I am asking the wrong people, but was the French Revolution justified? For this next question, I am asking the right people. Was the American revolution justified? Just imagine in either of those cases they had computers and could join political forums. I wish this was the type of forum where the French peasants could discuss killing the aristrocracy and overthrowing their government. Or I wish this was the type of forum that would allow Americans who want to be free to discuss getting rid of English rule. By the means that were necessary. Violence!

Thomas Jefferson once basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I wish there was a forum where people could discuss doing what one of our founding fathers said would be necessary. Instead of having 'clean" debate.

I think you are making something I'd describe as a thought error here. Both the French and the American revolution where revolutions with as its goal to switch the government from autocratic to democratic governance. The big advantage a democratic government has is that it has a built in mechanism to refresh itself. They call it an election cycle. Jefferson in his time had no way of knowing how effective the democratic experiment would be. So his call of occasional violence should be looked at in its historical context. The only reasoning I could see where violence should be allowed to break out, is when the democratic process itself is under attack. That process has been proven quite robust over the centuries.

 

[JoeMoma]

It helps to start with a coherent topic to debate.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That might be interesting to know. But while I am here, consider this. I realize I am asking the wrong people, but was the French Revolution justified? For this next question, I am asking the right people. Was the American revolution justified? Just imagine in either of those cases they had computers and could join political forums. I wish this was the type of forum where the French peasants could discuss killing the aristrocracy and overthrowing their government. Or I wish this was the type of forum that would allow Americans who want to be free to discuss getting rid of English rule. By the means that were necessary. Violence!

Thomas Jefferson once basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I wish there was a forum where people could discuss doing what one of our founding fathers said would be necessary. Instead of having 'clean" debate.

I think you are making something I'd describe as a thought error here. Both the French and the American revolution where revolutions with as its goal to switch the government from autocratic to democratic governance. The big advantage a democratic government has is that it has a built in mechanism to refresh itself. They call it an election cycle. Jefferson in his time had no way of knowing how effective the democratic experiment would be. So his call of occasional violence should be looked at in its historical context. The only reasoning I could see where violence should be allowed to break out, is when the democratic process itself is under attack. That process has been proven quite robust over the centuries.

The big advantage a democratic government has is that it has a built in mechanism to refresh itself.

It does, but, good lord, look at how long and all the "posturing" it takes to do so. On the other hand, there're no particular guarantees that a polity will be blessed with an enlightened and sufficiently altruistic autocrat/monarch. Accordingly, I slightly prefer a parliamentary democratic republic to a presidential one.

 

[jwoodie]

That might be interesting to know. But while I am here, consider this. I realize I am asking the wrong people, but was the French Revolution justified? For this next question, I am asking the right people. Was the American revolution justified? Just imagine in either of those cases they had computers and could join political forums. I wish this was the type of forum where the French peasants could discuss killing the aristrocracy and overthrowing their government. Or I wish this was the type of forum that would allow Americans who want to be free to discuss getting rid of English rule. By the means that were necessary. Violence!

Thomas Jefferson once basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I wish there was a forum where people could discuss doing what one of our founding fathers said would be necessary. Instead of having 'clean" debate.

Whether or not the French and American Revolutions were "justified" is a matter of opinion. In both cases, the instigating parties had no idea of how things would turn out. The French returned to authoritarianism, while the Americans stuck to democratic ideals. It is instructive to note that former British colonies have fared much better than those of other countries.