Why so little serious debate?

[usmbguest5318]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

 

[deannalw]

This was kind of a general flame to one and all, eh?

44 people peeked and didn't have an answer. I ain't got one either, I'm new here.

Taking a quick look about it looks like most have posted a LOT of threads with one another and with that sometimes comes a more lackadaisical approach. Sometimes a little more or less respect for one another, too.

I dunno. I've been posting political boards since the day of 9-11 and they all seem about the same to me.The only real differences seem to be the amount of censorship.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This was kind of a general flame to one and all, eh?

No.

I'm just trying to find the people who are willing and able to debate a topic with something close to the rigor with which scholars do, that is with strong essays and research papers (including scholarly references) shared among their peers. I have no interest in a "tweet war" or "doing the dozens" or in making simplistic points about weighty and expansive topics. What's the point of that? There's no substantive discussion to be had there.

 

[deannalw]

I ain't as strict in my expectations of folks, I guess. I do like a good exchange of ideas and thoughts expressed, but I like to just have fun as well.
Maybe what you need is a board full of scholars.
I think this ones full of everyday folks.

 

[saveliberty]

What was the topic of your thread this morning?

Seems like you posted it and ran.

"Have You Noticed?..."

Drawing inferences from you personal feelings and experiences is far from scholarly debate wouldn't you say?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

Why is this in Announcements and Feedback and not say in General Discussion?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I ain't as strict in my expectations of folks, I guess. I do like a good exchange of ideas and thoughts expressed, but I like to just have fun as well.
Maybe what you need is a board full of scholars.
I think this ones full of everyday folks.

If people were serious all of the time then it would get a bit boring.

 

[Bleipriester]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

It´s because both parties have nothing to offer but accusations towards each other. Many of them are true. In fact, the supporters of a bunch of psychopaths clash with supporters of a bunch of psychopaths. They should unite and get rid of them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

Why is this in Announcements and Feedback and not say in General Discussion?

Because when the thought crossed my mind, the contextual situation I was considering was what strikes me as the insufficiency of rigorous forensic debate on USMB's politics sub-forum in spite of the fact that debate is at least one point for participating in the forum. I don't know about you, but I was part of my high school and collegiate forensics teams and I enjoyed watching my kids participate in debates when they were in school. I also enjoyed competitive essay writing.

What wasn't there to like? That was my era's rough equivalent of what a political debate forum has the potential to be. When a topic captures one's interest, one's likely going to deeply research that topic. Once one has developed a strong understanding of it, one's bound to form an opinion about varying aspect of the topic. Engaging in a rigorous debate on the matter is a fine way to gain new information and discover new perspectives.

The "problem" here is that so very few folks express fresh ideas (maybe they have fresh ideas and approaches, but most members certainly seem reticent to share them if they do) or even bother to put forth a really strong arguments for whatever POV they have. Expressing my thoughts in that regard seems more a matter of forum feedback than one of general discussion.

Obviously, as this is a writing only venue, one can't fully replicate the environment of a forensics debate tournament. What one can do, however, is engage in the sort of debate that scholars undertake. Though scholarly research papers and arguments aim to advance the body of knowledge in a given field, publishing papers that refute, amplify, or counter propose ideas is how they debate matters. That type of debate is well suited to a venue like USMB in that one need not feel obliged to respond immediately; one can instead take the time to develop strong and well researched essay. That approach to debate is, perhaps, most easily seen in scholarly legal journals, although it's no less extant in the social sciences, natural sciences, maths, business, etc.

Make what you will of that, but you asked and that's the answer.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

It´s because both parties have nothing to offer but accusations towards each other. Many of them are true. In fact, the supporters of a bunch of psychopaths clash with supporters of a bunch of psychopaths. They should unite and get rid of them.

Okay. TY for your reply.

The members here, however, aren't "the parties." They are the stakeholders of whatever policies the parties propone. I would have thought that they'd separate themselves from either party and simply engage in substantive debate on merit. Obviously, my supposition in that regard is predominantly mistaken.

 

[saveliberty]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

It´s because both parties have nothing to offer but accusations towards each other. Many of them are true. In fact, the supporters of a bunch of psychopaths clash with supporters of a bunch of psychopaths. They should unite and get rid of them.

Okay. TY for your reply.

The members here, however, aren't "the parties." They are the stakeholders of whatever policies the parties propone. I would have thought that they'd separate themselves from either party and simply engage in substantive debate on merit. Obviously, my supposition in that regard is predominantly mistaken.

Your a thousand posts in and suddenly this strikes you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

It´s because both parties have nothing to offer but accusations towards each other. Many of them are true. In fact, the supporters of a bunch of psychopaths clash with supporters of a bunch of psychopaths. They should unite and get rid of them.

Okay. TY for your reply.

The members here, however, aren't "the parties." They are the stakeholders of whatever policies the parties propone. I would have thought that they'd separate themselves from either party and simply engage in substantive debate on merit. Obviously, my supposition in that regard is predominantly mistaken.

Your a thousand posts in and suddenly this strikes you?

I'm not keen to rush to judgement. The quantity of posts I've made has no bearing on the amount of time it takes me to observe the nature of others' posts and explore the forum looking for the type of high quality content I would most like to see.

You'll note that there are some 16.5M messages posted on the forum. I dare say it's even somewhat premature after my casual browsing of the various subforums to arrive at the conclusion I've posited in the OP of this thread.

 

[Bleipriester]

Okay. TY for your reply.

The members here, however, aren't "the parties." They are the stakeholders of whatever policies the parties propone. I would have thought that they'd separate themselves from either party and simply engage in substantive debate on merit. Obviously, my supposition in that regard is predominantly mistaken.

Good point. Over that they have forgotten their common interests and the other party is the enemy of America. I think, both have turned into enemies of America, an upper bourgeoisie that works because enough yields for the ragtag.

 

[Coyote]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

USMB is kind of like a town. We have the commons, where we play softball or soccer, we have the bars and churches, we have our ghettos and trailer parks and portapotty parks and we have our libraries and universities. For the sort of discussion you desire, I really would recommend the Clean Debate Zone.

 

[saveliberty]

I liked my airline analogy better.

Exits in front, on the side and rear. No lines at the restrooms. Keep your seat belts on unless the light is out. No one has any idea where your luggage is.

 

[Bleipriester]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

USMB is kind of like a town. We have the commons, where we play softball or soccer, we have the bars and churches, we have our ghettos and trailer parks and portapotty parks and we have our libraries and universities. For the sort of discussion you desire, I really would recommend the Clean Debate Zone.

Where are the trailer park girls, then? Only those hyper-christian fun-banning coffee-nondrinkers who get their ecstasy during the TV-prayer and wear chest and waistband armor?

 

[Picaro]

Time and time again, when I look over the thread titles in the Politics and CDZ sub-forums, most of what I see is just people relating a news headline. Nobody needs people in a debating venue to merely share a news story, particularly a story that's "all over" the news networks anyway.

To make the matter even more inane, the members quite often do nothing more than share a news link and make a comment about "liberals this" or "conservatives that." WTH is that? It's hardly fodder for substantive discourse about an important topic. Indeed, it's little more than a thinly veiled "flame" at unspecified parties. The forum has two places for third-grade discourse like that: the Flame Zone and The Rubber Room.

Why is there so little rigorous, intellectual, rational, adult debate? The place where adjectives and adverbs are used to add nuanced context, not to lambaste. Did people here not participate on their high school or college forensics teams?

Why not try and actually start one of these 'serious threads' and find out?

Until then, you're not going to fare any better under this handle than you did as 320YearsOfFantasyHistory.

 

[monkrules]

This was kind of a general flame to one and all, eh?

No.

I'm just trying to find the people who are willing and able to debate a topic with something close to the rigor with which scholars do, that is with strong essays and research papers (including scholarly references) shared among their peers. I have no interest in a "tweet war" or "doing the dozens" or in making simplistic points about weighty and expansive topics. What's the point of that? There's no substantive discussion to be had there.

Every website seems to take on the personality of its owners and the majority of its members. I lurked this board for six months before deciding to become a member. When I joined, it was because I felt this place is pretty free-wheeling and relatively lightly moderated. Most importantly, to me, members are given a lot of freedom with which to express their opinions about virtually anything.

And that’s exactly what I was looking for: light moderation, humor, opinions, snark, and fun. I find ‘serious’ debate Boring (yes, the capital B was intended). Pages and pages of stilted language by pompous posters trying to convince other members that they are some kind of special expert on Life, the Universe, and Everything, are the last thing I want to see. I’ve been in forums like that, and it’s often impossible to find the breath of life, or even a fucking pulse. I like this place much better, just the way it is. I’m here to have fun. That’s it. Not to be ‘educated’ by some egghead who thinks what he has to say should be heard and accepted by every other person on the planet.

There are plenty of ‘scholarly’ forums on the internet, I’m sure. And if one needs, or wants, to find genuine experts on any given subject it probably wouldn’t be too hard to do. So why would people waste their time debating “wannabe” experts on a general forum such as USMB? As another member mentioned, there is a Clean Debate Zone, if all you’re interested in is serious discussion. I don’t know what the CDZ is like because I’ve never visited it. As I said, serious debates are the last thing I’m interested in. I’m here for fun. That’s it.

The Clean Debate Zone lists 2,811 discussions, while the Current Events and Politics forums list 71,890, and 162,446 discussions, respectively. So I’d say I’m certainly not the only member who finds ‘scholarly’ and ‘serious’ debates too boring for words. Most members seem to be here for entertainment, not to be ‘educated’ by self-proclaimed Experts on Everything.

 

[gipper]

The Left lost their minds when Trump won. They can only flame in every post.

Watching the Emmys was proof.

 

[ChrisL]

This was kind of a general flame to one and all, eh?

No.

I'm just trying to find the people who are willing and able to debate a topic with something close to the rigor with which scholars do, that is with strong essays and research papers (including scholarly references) shared among their peers. I have no interest in a "tweet war" or "doing the dozens" or in making simplistic points about weighty and expansive topics. What's the point of that? There's no substantive discussion to be had there.

I used to do all of these things, but I've given up on that for the most part. It's just a waste of time in a venue like this.