Why so little serious debate?

[ChrisL]

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.

This place isn't reserved for just "scholars" or even educated people. Anyone and everyone can and does post here. Lol.

 

[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.

This place isn't reserved for just "scholars" or even educated people. Anyone and everyone can and does post here. Lol.

True that. That everyone can is a good thing. That so infrequently is there serious debate is the thread question.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

This place isn't reserved for just "scholars" or even educated people. Anyone and everyone can and does post here. Lol.

True that. That everyone can is a good thing. That so infrequently is there serious debate is the thread question.

Well I think you probably know the answer to that question!

 

[Bonzi]

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?

Because they are too chicken to act like the assholes they are in real life

 

[Humorme]

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.

You're entitled to your opinion, but when some posters do have a thread going and they are having somewhat of an academic discussion and not necessarily a debate, it's just a click of a mouse for you to find a thread you are more comfortable with.

So, you think people sharing their experience is annoying? I'm not amused by the people who go from thread to thread to find posters they disagree with and spend their ever waking moment, trolling those individuals and coating their posts with name calling (one poster cannot have two consecutive posts here without calling people idiots, morons and imbeciles.) That kind of discourse is not entertaining, educational, interesting, nor conducive to a productive thread.

Lacing threads with name calling and badgering people for fun is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of cowardice and feelings of inferiority. It could also be a sign of a person that is disturbed and in need of psychiatric help. The occasional insult or barb is understandable, but when you have someone following a single poster on the board and calling them names more than a dozen times in a thread, what you have is a stalker - and possibly someone who is criminally insane.

My advice would be, if you don't like the tone of a thread, exit it and start one of your own if the topic is interesting to you, but existing ones are going a different direction. The moderators would be well advised to confront the trolls and to quit deleting the responses when the trolls get spanked.

 

[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.

You're entitled to your opinion, but when some posters do have a thread going and they are having somewhat of an academic discussion and not necessarily a debate, it's just a click of a mouse for you to find a thread you are more comfortable with.

So, you think people sharing their experience is annoying? I'm not amused by the people who go from thread to thread to find posters they disagree with and spend their ever waking moment, trolling those individuals and coating their posts with name calling (one poster cannot have two consecutive posts here without calling people idiots, morons and imbeciles.) That kind of discourse is not entertaining, educational, interesting, nor conducive to a productive thread.

Lacing threads with name calling and badgering people for fun is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of cowardice and feelings of inferiority. It could also be a sign of a person that is disturbed and in need of psychiatric help. The occasional insult or barb is understandable, but when you have someone following a single poster on the board and calling them names more than a dozen times in a thread, what you have is a stalker - and possibly someone who is criminally insane.

My advice would be, if you don't like the tone of a thread, exit it and start one of your own if the topic is interesting to you, but existing ones are going a different direction. The moderators would be well advised to confront the trolls and to quit deleting the responses when the trolls get spanked.

You make a lot of good points.

That's why I make good use the Ignore option. It's the quickest, most efficient way to get rid of posters whose messages one finds obnoxious, boring, repetitive, or otherwise not worth reading.

 

[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 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.

This place isn't reserved for just "scholars" or even educated people. Anyone and everyone can and does post here. Lol.

True that. That everyone can is a good thing. That so infrequently is there serious debate is the thread question.

All I've ever seen you post is just long-winded propaganda and spin, nothing serious at all. Maybe try and post something serious and see how it goes for a change, instead of hoping quantity makes up for ignorant memes and pseudo-intellectual fashion victimhood.

 

[Humorme]

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.

You're entitled to your opinion, but when some posters do have a thread going and they are having somewhat of an academic discussion and not necessarily a debate, it's just a click of a mouse for you to find a thread you are more comfortable with.

So, you think people sharing their experience is annoying? I'm not amused by the people who go from thread to thread to find posters they disagree with and spend their ever waking moment, trolling those individuals and coating their posts with name calling (one poster cannot have two consecutive posts here without calling people idiots, morons and imbeciles.) That kind of discourse is not entertaining, educational, interesting, nor conducive to a productive thread.

Lacing threads with name calling and badgering people for fun is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of cowardice and feelings of inferiority. It could also be a sign of a person that is disturbed and in need of psychiatric help. The occasional insult or barb is understandable, but when you have someone following a single poster on the board and calling them names more than a dozen times in a thread, what you have is a stalker - and possibly someone who is criminally insane.

My advice would be, if you don't like the tone of a thread, exit it and start one of your own if the topic is interesting to you, but existing ones are going a different direction. The moderators would be well advised to confront the trolls and to quit deleting the responses when the trolls get spanked.

You make a lot of good points.

That's why I make good use the Ignore option. It's the quickest, most efficient way to get rid of posters whose messages one finds obnoxious, boring, repetitive, or otherwise not worth reading.

I consider that too, have you noticed how many posters avoid some threads once it gets down to three or four people having a whizzing contest?

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
Among forum sites, XenForo has one of the best ignore functions. It even removes their names and words from "quotes".

 

[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.

This place isn't reserved for just "scholars" or even educated people. Anyone and everyone can and does post here. Lol.

True that. That everyone can is a good thing. That so infrequently is there serious debate is the thread question.

Well I think you probably know the answer to that question!

I can, as can anyone, posit answers to that question; however, neither do I know the answer(s) to that question nor do I presume the answer(s) I might conjure are correct.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

 

[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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

expend that kind of time for an internet forum.

The seriousness of debate or discussion is not a function of time. It is a function of intellectual and discursive integrity, which are things that one can exhibit as and/or permit to be a time consuming endeavor or not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

So in your mind, are the behaviors listed noted in post one of "Policy debate and discussion" "relaxing?"

 

[Darkwind]

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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

expend that kind of time for an internet forum.

The seriousness of debate or discussion is not a function of time. It is a function of intellectual and discursive integrity, which are things that one can exhibit and permit to be time consuming or not.

No, it is a function of worth and time. People come to forums like this for many reasons. I've been a member of this forum for while now.

I can tell you that a majority of them come here for the thrill of insulting people. Many of them are trying to lift insults to an artform, as witness the flame zone. Others, as have already replied in this thread, come here for fun and entertainment. Often, that is in the form of insulting. Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth. This is one of the reasons I come to this forum.

I started frequenting internet forums in early 2000 when the new defunct MSNBC forums were active. I have been on many of them, from CNN, ABC, Yahoo, and of course, Hannity. They all have one thing in common. No one is there for long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses. I did all that when I was getting My undergrad degree, and put up with some snobbish professors when I was working on My Masters. The one thing they had in common, the research had a goal.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources based upon bias. Even you, with your scholarly references, would refuse any reference that was not written by biased, university professors who follow a peer review policy that is nothing more than crony academia.

So, unless you are willing to pay Me for My time, I'll reserve the academic research for letters and white papers I send to My Senator and Congressmen, not that I think they'd make the effort to change anything. It would, however, be a much better use of My time.

 

[Darkwind]

I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

So in your mind, are the behaviors listed noted in post one of "Policy debate and discussion" "relaxing?"

No, I don't think that they are.

 

[Leo123]

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?

I formulate part of my opinions based on what I know or have learned. Sometimes it helps to produce a citation to support what I am claiming. I dislike those who just use debate tactics and fake turn of phrase to obfuscate, move the goalposts, try to create false premises, etc. then arrogantly claim the high ground. Put up or shut up I say. We can then debate how and why we derived our stands.

 

[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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

expend that kind of time for an internet forum.

The seriousness of debate or discussion is not a function of time. It is a function of intellectual and discursive integrity, which are things that one can exhibit and permit to be time consuming or not.

No, it is a function of worth and time. People come to forums like this for many reasons. I've been a member of this forum for while now.

I can tell you that a majority of them come here for the thrill of insulting people. Many of them are trying to lift insults to an artform, as witness the flame zone. Others, as have already replied in this thread, come here for fun and entertainment. Often, that is in the form of insulting. Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth. This is one of the reasons I come to this forum.

I started frequenting internet forums in early 2000 when the new defunct MSNBC forums were active. I have been on many of them, from CNN, ABC, Yahoo, and of course, Hannity. They all have one thing in common. No one is there for long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses. I did all that when I was getting My undergrad degree, and put up with some snobbish professors when I was working on My Masters. The one thing they had in common, the research had a goal.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources based upon bias. Even you, with your scholarly references, would refuse any reference that was not written by biased, university professors who follow a peer review policy that is nothing more than crony academia.

So, unless you are willing to pay Me for My time, I'll reserve the academic research for letters and white papers I send to My Senator and Congressmen, not that I think they'd make the effort to change anything. It would, however, be a much better use of My time.

Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth.

There is only the truth, not your truth and/or my truth.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
― William F. Buckley Jr.​

The one thing they had in common, the research was a goal.

Your programs were, then, quite different from mine. For my profs and me, the research was but a means to an end, not the end itself.

long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses.

I too am not keen to perform hours of research to post here, so I understand that others also would not care to do so. The most I'll do is bother to provide references that credibly corroborate the assertions I make. Truly, the only reason I do that here is because I'm unwilling to yield my anonymity -- in the "real world," I don't need to do that for when I'm presenting my thoughts on a topic, the audience members are already certain that I know what the hell I'm talking about. Here, nobody knows who I am or what specific achievements I've made in my life or in what disciples I'm expert; thus it's incumbent on me to present credible references to corroborate what I write. That's nothing more than one of the many manifestations of discursive integrity, and it's a manifestation of respect for others' intelligence.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources

Each of us must define our goals. You're better than I can, for yourself, answer that question.

I don't do "academic level" research for my posts. I merely reference content I'm already aware of prior to posting. To be sure, I do not and will not conjure a topic for discussion here, head off and research it, and then here post a "academic level" essay on the topic. Insofar as I won't for posting here do that, I hardly can expect others to do so.

 

[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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

expend that kind of time for an internet forum.

The seriousness of debate or discussion is not a function of time. It is a function of intellectual and discursive integrity, which are things that one can exhibit and permit to be time consuming or not.

No, it is a function of worth and time. People come to forums like this for many reasons. I've been a member of this forum for while now.

I can tell you that a majority of them come here for the thrill of insulting people. Many of them are trying to lift insults to an artform, as witness the flame zone. Others, as have already replied in this thread, come here for fun and entertainment. Often, that is in the form of insulting. Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth. This is one of the reasons I come to this forum.

I started frequenting internet forums in early 2000 when the new defunct MSNBC forums were active. I have been on many of them, from CNN, ABC, Yahoo, and of course, Hannity. They all have one thing in common. No one is there for long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses. I did all that when I was getting My undergrad degree, and put up with some snobbish professors when I was working on My Masters. The one thing they had in common, the research had a goal.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources based upon bias. Even you, with your scholarly references, would refuse any reference that was not written by biased, university professors who follow a peer review policy that is nothing more than crony academia.

So, unless you are willing to pay Me for My time, I'll reserve the academic research for letters and white papers I send to My Senator and Congressmen, not that I think they'd make the effort to change anything. It would, however, be a much better use of My time.

Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth.

There is only the truth, not your truth and/or my truth.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
― William F. Buckley Jr.​

The one thing they had in common, the research was a goal.

Your programs were, then, quite different from mine. For my profs and me, the research was but a means to an end, not the end itself.

long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses.

I too am not keen to perform hours of research to post here, so I understand that others also would not care to do so. The most I'll do is bother to provide references that credibly corroborate the assertions I make. Truly, the only reason I do that here is because I'm unwilling to yield my anonymity -- in the "real world," I don't need to do that for when I'm presenting my thoughts on a topic, the audience members are already certain that I know what the hell I'm talking about. Here, nobody knows who I am or what specific achievements I've made in my life or in what disciples I'm expert; thus it's incumbent on me to present credible references to corroborate what I write. That's nothing more than one of the many manifestations of discursive integrity, and it's a manifestation of respect for others' intelligence.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources

Each of us must define our goals. You're better than I can, for yourself, answer that question.

I don't do "academic level" research for my posts. I merely reference content I'm already aware of prior to posting. To be sure, I do not and will not conjure a topic for discussion here, head off and research it, and then here post a "academic level" essay on the topic. Insofar as I won't for posting here do that, I hardly can expect others to do so.

So, what is your goal by being here?

 

[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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

expend that kind of time for an internet forum.

The seriousness of debate or discussion is not a function of time. It is a function of intellectual and discursive integrity, which are things that one can exhibit and permit to be time consuming or not.

No, it is a function of worth and time. People come to forums like this for many reasons. I've been a member of this forum for while now.

I can tell you that a majority of them come here for the thrill of insulting people. Many of them are trying to lift insults to an artform, as witness the flame zone. Others, as have already replied in this thread, come here for fun and entertainment. Often, that is in the form of insulting. Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth. This is one of the reasons I come to this forum.

I started frequenting internet forums in early 2000 when the new defunct MSNBC forums were active. I have been on many of them, from CNN, ABC, Yahoo, and of course, Hannity. They all have one thing in common. No one is there for long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses. I did all that when I was getting My undergrad degree, and put up with some snobbish professors when I was working on My Masters. The one thing they had in common, the research had a goal.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources based upon bias. Even you, with your scholarly references, would refuse any reference that was not written by biased, university professors who follow a peer review policy that is nothing more than crony academia.

So, unless you are willing to pay Me for My time, I'll reserve the academic research for letters and white papers I send to My Senator and Congressmen, not that I think they'd make the effort to change anything. It would, however, be a much better use of My time.

Well, short and sweet is something to keep in mind when writing your essays.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

You are in the wrong place. No one here will expend that kind of time for an internet forum. If that is what you want, I suggest a venue that is devoted to people whose activities are a serious policy debate, not relaxation.

expend that kind of time for an internet forum.

The seriousness of debate or discussion is not a function of time. It is a function of intellectual and discursive integrity, which are things that one can exhibit and permit to be time consuming or not.

No, it is a function of worth and time. People come to forums like this for many reasons. I've been a member of this forum for while now.

I can tell you that a majority of them come here for the thrill of insulting people. Many of them are trying to lift insults to an artform, as witness the flame zone. Others, as have already replied in this thread, come here for fun and entertainment. Often, that is in the form of insulting. Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth. This is one of the reasons I come to this forum.

I started frequenting internet forums in early 2000 when the new defunct MSNBC forums were active. I have been on many of them, from CNN, ABC, Yahoo, and of course, Hannity. They all have one thing in common. No one is there for long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses. I did all that when I was getting My undergrad degree, and put up with some snobbish professors when I was working on My Masters. The one thing they had in common, the research had a goal.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources based upon bias. Even you, with your scholarly references, would refuse any reference that was not written by biased, university professors who follow a peer review policy that is nothing more than crony academia.

So, unless you are willing to pay Me for My time, I'll reserve the academic research for letters and white papers I send to My Senator and Congressmen, not that I think they'd make the effort to change anything. It would, however, be a much better use of My time.

Others yet come here to ensure that the voice of the opposition does not go unanswered based on the notion that if only one side is voicing their opinion, then they must be speaking the truth.

There is only the truth, not your truth and/or my truth.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
― William F. Buckley Jr.​

The one thing they had in common, the research was a goal.

Your programs were, then, quite different from mine. For my profs and me, the research was but a means to an end, not the end itself.

long, protracted debates that require hours of research to justify given responses.

I too am not keen to perform hours of research to post here, so I understand that others also would not care to do so. The most I'll do is bother to provide references that credibly corroborate the assertions I make. Truly, the only reason I do that here is because I'm unwilling to yield my anonymity -- in the "real world," I don't need to do that for when I'm presenting my thoughts on a topic, the audience members are already certain that I know what the hell I'm talking about. Here, nobody knows who I am or what specific achievements I've made in my life or in what disciples I'm expert; thus it's incumbent on me to present credible references to corroborate what I write. That's nothing more than one of the many manifestations of discursive integrity, and it's a manifestation of respect for others' intelligence.

What goal is there for Me to provide academic level research to a bunch of people who will just deny the validity of the sources

Each of us must define our goals. You're better than I can, for yourself, answer that question.

I don't do "academic level" research for my posts. I merely reference content I'm already aware of prior to posting. To be sure, I do not and will not conjure a topic for discussion here, head off and research it, and then here post a "academic level" essay on the topic. Insofar as I won't for posting here do that, I hardly can expect others to do so.

So, what is your goal by being here?

Political and public policy analysis and discussion is not new to me. It is an unavoidable aspect of the type of work I do. You can't really deliver a quality industry or competitive analysis to a company or industry association without discussing the statutory and political factors affecting them.

Even though I'm not new to political pondering, this is my first time on a political forum, or forum of any sort for that matter. The social media thing just never interested me; however, after watching this past election and seeing the incessant use of Twitter and hearing about the banter on forums like this one, I decided to see for myself. I hope to learn first hand about the people who use political communication tools like this forum. I'm also curious to discover how discussions on forums differ from those that I and my teams and clients have on public policy matters.