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

[Arianrhod]

Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new.

You mean like this post?

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Ditto Democratic Underground.

 

[Flopper]

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

Conservative, liberal, or whatever like to hear confirmations of what they believe which is what you get when you discuss an issue with someone who shares your beliefs.

I think the majority of members are not open to changing their beliefs on most issues they discuss. Occasional you find someone who is really open minded and willing to actually debate an issue.

 

[Flopper]

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

I really don't think many members are here to discover whether their point of view is creditable. They're here to express their opinion and attack those with contrary opinions offering no rebuttal but often with insults and name calling which tends to destroy the thread.

 

[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.

??? Excuse me? The burden of articulating where the candidate stands on an issue rests with the candidate, not with a moderator. (https://www.neisd.net/fa/documents/StudentCongressEventGuide.pdf) High school debators understand that much. Is it really asking too much of grown men and women to understand it as well and come accordingly prepared to their debate?

In two posts -- Do you expect candidates, elected or appointed officials to directly answer questions posed to them? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and Do you expect candidates, elected or appointed officials to directly answer questions posed to them? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum -- I provided simple examples of ways in which the questions posed to three of the CNBC debate's GOP candidates could have been deftly answered and used to express a position on a given issue. Indeed, the question Mr. Rubio got could have been parlayed into a discussion on damn near any issue about which he chose to extemporize. He need only have offered "consider XYZ" rather the "consider immigration" example I posed in the post linked above.

Who's asking the questions? I'm talking about how the moderators won't ask questions that give the candidate an opportunity to state their position, but instead will ask them something inflammatory like "Are you a comic book character?". This is a bait thread, for sure.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

well this is a complete lie and nothing more than a troll thread.

why do cowards hide in the cdz?

There is no lie at all. I don't at all appreciate your intimating that I'm a liar by baselessly asserting that something I wrote is a lie. Please do not do so again.

If you think that there is no thematic call from among conservatives to have debates and discussions that include only other conservatives, then please explain how the fact of both publicly known conservatives and USMB members both have made explicit calls for debates and discussions participated in by only other conservatives does not constitute a theme.

You made the false accusation that it cons debating cons

that's a lie

you made the claim that that is all we want

that's a lie

you are a liar, you know you are lying and yet hide your thread in the cdz so you won't get the public berating you have coming.

and where is your standards for leftist?

it's different, right?

 

[PredFan]

Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new.

You mean like this post?

What are you talking about? Do YOU know?

 

[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

well this is a complete lie and nothing more than a troll thread.

why do cowards hide in the cdz?

There is no lie at all. I don't at all appreciate your intimating that I'm a liar by baselessly asserting that something I wrote is a lie. Please do not do so again.

If you think that there is no thematic call from among conservatives to have debates and discussions that include only other conservatives, then please explain how the fact of both publicly known conservatives and USMB members both have made explicit calls for debates and discussions participated in by only other conservatives does not constitute a theme.

You made the false accusation that it cons debating cons

that's a lie

you made the claim that that is all we want

that's a lie

you are a liar, you know you are lying and yet hide your thread in the cdz so you won't get the public berating you have coming.

and where is your standards for leftist?

it's different, right?

It is very different.

 

[Arianrhod]

Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new.

You mean like this post?

What are you talking about? Do YOU know?

Yes.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well, in the "structured debate" forum, there are thread(s) where it is limited to conservative posters....

 

[martybegan]

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

How so?

really?

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

why? it's obvious.

No, it isn't. Please enlighten me.

 

[2aguy]

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

No……they just don't want democrat journalists sabotaging our candidates and setting up the attack for the democrats the way george stephanopolous and candy crawely did against Mitt Romney……having your opponents ask your guys the questions simply to help their side in the upcoming general election is no way to run a debate to pick our candidate...

 

[oldsoul]

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

Maybe a better question here is" why do you have a problem with it?" If free people want to have a discussion with other, like minded people, why is that so wrong? Is it because you are excluded? Is it because you feel discriminated against? Or maybe you feel threatened? Maybe it's because you feel it is "unfair" and exclutionary. I don't know, but I a

 

[daws101]

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.

I've watched all the debates democrat and republican.
Imo none the mods has shown any bias toward any of the candidates however, what I have seen is certain republican candidates throw tantrums .

Gee, knock me over with a feather. I've read your posts here and I already knew you wouldn't see anything.

there was nothing to see.
Ben Carson Defends His Street Cred

...and though the clip is meant to be humorous, one thing cannot be overlooked. For all else, at least once in his life, Dr. Carson willfully and violently, with a deadly weapon, attempted to kill/maim another human being.

Tell me this. Have you ever willfully sought to stab another person in the abdomen? Have you ever willfully sought to harm another person with a deadly weapon?

I sure haven't, not even as a child or teenager. I doubt I ever will. There are lots of folks who "had it rough" as kids, and a lot of them don't attempt or actually do exact bodily harm to another person.

And don't dare try to say he was practicing for a career in surgical medicine....But you can tell me what the difference is between a person that stabs (or tries to) someone and gets incarcerated for it and never does so again, and Dr. Carson...what, that is, other than that Dr. Carson's doing so didn't become widely known until the statute of limitations passed?

As a boy and as a teen I was in lots of fights
Sometimes weapons were used.
The reason I posted that clip was to give evidence that Ben Carson is not being treated any different than any other candidate.
The last 3 min of the clip debunk the nonsense about Obama getting a free ride from the media.

 

[daws101]

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.

I've watched all the debates democrat and republican.
Imo none the mods has shown any bias toward any of the candidates however, what I have seen is certain republican candidates throw tantrums .

Gee, knock me over with a feather. I've read your posts here and I already knew you wouldn't see anything.

there was nothing to see.
Ben Carson Defends His Street Cred

Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new.

Another false assumption .

 

[daws101]

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

How so?

really?

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

why? it's obvious.

No, it isn't. Please enlighten me.

No need.

 

[martybegan]

How so?

really?

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

why? it's obvious.

No, it isn't. Please enlighten me.

No need.

You made the statement, all I am asking for is for you to elaborate.

 

[daws101]

really?

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

why? it's obvious.

No, it isn't. Please enlighten me.

No need.

You made the statement, all I am asking for is for you to elaborate.

Also not needed.

 

[martybegan]

ya, Rly. Please elaborate.

why? it's obvious.

No, it isn't. Please enlighten me.

No need.

You made the statement, all I am asking for is for you to elaborate.

Also not needed.

Then I accept your inability to respond to my question as your admittance of your not having an answer.

Good day.

 

[Arianrhod]

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

Maybe a better question here is" why do you have a problem with it?" If free people want to have a discussion with other, like minded people, why is that so wrong? Is it because you are excluded? Is it because you feel discriminated against? Or maybe you feel threatened? Maybe it's because you feel it is "unfair" and exclutionary. I don't know, but I a

I don't have a problem with it. It's helpful in assessing people's MO, in this case a tendency toward exclusion. If the only people you want to talk with are other like-minded people, PMs are a good way to do that. Topic-specific message boards are another. Going out of one's way to say "We Plaid People are having a conversation among ourselves in a public forum and you Striped People are not invited" is reminiscent of Calvin's Treehouse, IMO.