CDZ What is the value of having a debate only with like minded individuals?

[320 Years of History]

In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn


There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.

I have a question. Why?

There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?

I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:

• There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
• The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group. In this situation, it doesn't matter if my kids agree with me or not. I always agree with myself. <grins & chuckles>

In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?


The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

 

[jwoodie]

False premise. Conservatives are much more willing to discuss politics with a liberal than vice versa.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals are idiots who seldom make sense.

When a liberal is presented with a dissenting opinion, they devolve into a personal attack designed to shut down the discussion.

Liberals reject facts in favor of feelings.

I personally have no patience with liberals.

 

[saveliberty]

As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.

 

[midcan5]

"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever—will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought." The Rhetoric of Reaction

http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reac...p/067476868X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

False premise. Conservatives are much more willing to discuss politics with a liberal than vice versa.

Go to Red State and profess an opinion other than a conservative one and you'll be banned by the end of the day.

 

[martybegan]

the op's premise was proven correct by the first two posters.

How so?

really?

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

 

[Spinster]

Like minded people enjoy one another's company. That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far right reactionaries want to discuss with other far right reactionaries so they are not confused and are in their safe places.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Because most discussions with Liberals turn into "Yes it is! No it isn't!" or "My side, Your side" mindless cheerleading.

Then it devolves into "You're a Racist! You're a Nazi!"

So what's the point?

 

[oldsoul]

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....

This seems to me to be the problem, I refer you to the 2nd Republican "debate". Seems to me that the left wants to get rid of any dissenting opinions... Just a personal observation.

 

[S.J.]

There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives.

The CNBC debate should have answered that question for you. Liberal moderators are not interested in giving the public a chance to see where the candidates stand on the issues, their only interest is PREVENTING the public from having a chance to see where they stand on the issues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Left and right ideologues whine, whine a lot. That's what they do.

 

[320 Years of History]

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....

This seems to me to be the problem, I refer you to the 2nd Republican "debate". Seems to me that the left wants to get rid of any dissenting opinions... Just a personal observation.

??? I'm sorry. I don't follow you....

 

[320 Years of History]

As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.

I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?

• Clean debate zone: CDZ - Fellow Conservatives, let's discuss Donald Trump together. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Structured debate: Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[daws101]

the op's premise was proven correct by the first two posters.

How so?

really?

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

why? it's obvious.

 

[PredFan]

In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn


There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.

I have a question. Why?

There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?

I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:

• There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
• The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group. In this situation, it doesn't matter if my kids agree with me or not. I always agree with myself. <grins & chuckles>

In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?


The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

One your first question, you are in error. There was a first debate that went fine and it was on one of the liberal MSM channels. It was only the CNBC one that was bad. They complained and rightly so.

On your second question, the problem is that liberals here have several very irritating habits or intentional strategies for deception. All of them are intended to prevent them from actually answering questions or to beat their opponent down through various tedious diversion techniques until we say "fuck it" and give up.

Liberals cannot debate policy or ideas, they only talk about emotions. And the #1 tool in their arsenal is the lie. They lie, then lie about the lie, and keep on repeating the lie until basically you can't tolerate them anymore.

No Progressive will ever ever EVER change their mind. In fact they will, after having a point ripped to shreds in one thread, repeat that very same already disproven point in another thread.

So yeah, many of us will only argue with a liberal if we are bored, or want to take on an almost certainly fruitless challenge.

I don't care to even hear from them. Many have me on ignore and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[saveliberty]

OP makes false premise, then follows up with typical posts that make debating unnecessary and pointless. Basically demonstrates why it can happen and how to get conservatives to engage in debate by eliminating poor debate replies.

 

[PredFan]

As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.

I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?

• Clean debate zone: CDZ - Fellow Conservatives, let's discuss Donald Trump together. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Structured debate: Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The left's candidates will go on a debate with the MSM moderators because they will be treated with kid gloves. There is only one news network that has conservative moderators, and I doubt seriously that Hillary will face a FOX News Moderator. YOU are criticizing the GOP for not wanting to have antagonistic moderators? You are criticizing the GOP for wanting friendly moderators? That's genuinely hypocritical.

If we have a GOP debate about economic policy, the people watching want to hear about economic policy and not bull shit personal attacks or loaded questions about gay rights, or religious beliefs. If we do have a GOP debate about say, social issues and Rush or Beck or Levin are the moderators, I guarantee you that it will be about social issues. Moderators aren't supposed to sling mud. They are only supposed to ask pertinent questions and moderate the allotted time, that's it.

 

[Lilah]

In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn


There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.

I have a question. Why?

There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?

I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:

• There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
• The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group. In this situation, it doesn't matter if my kids agree with me or not. I always agree with myself. <grins & chuckles>

In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?


The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good