CDZ A clean debate about clean debate

[Dogmaphobe]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

I think those are great suggestions.

I would add, be careful in your choice of subject matter and how you frame it. Some topics are just too inflammatory to work in CDZ, others might be but if you frame them well - they can encourage discussion rather than reaction.

Is the OP going to immediately put a group on the defensive or is it going to encourage that group to discuss?

The whole idea about CDZ is to promote discussion in a civil and respectful way - thought the rules don't explicitely state can't do this, insulting or putting down an entire group is not going to promote civil discussion.

Sometimes a good rule of thumb is - how would I feel if xyz were directed at me?

If a poster going out of their way to insult an entire group of people is objectionable, do you believe it makes for wise site policy to then reward them for it, especially considering they are injecting such into a thread for the sole purpose of trolling?

 

[Coyote]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

I think those are great suggestions.

I would add, be careful in your choice of subject matter and how you frame it. Some topics are just too inflammatory to work in CDZ, others might be but if you frame them well - they can encourage discussion rather than reaction.

Is the OP going to immediately put a group on the defensive or is it going to encourage that group to discuss?

The whole idea about CDZ is to promote discussion in a civil and respectful way - thought the rules don't explicitely state can't do this, insulting or putting down an entire group is not going to promote civil discussion.

Sometimes a good rule of thumb is - how would I feel if xyz were directed at me?

If a poster going out of their way to insult an entire group of people is objectionable, do you believe it makes for wise site policy to then reward them for it, especially considering they are injecting such into a thread for the sole purpose of trolling?

I'm not sure what you mean by rewarding them for it - and do you mean in the CDZ, in general?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Since this is the clean debate forum, I would like to ask people for their opinions on what does and does not constitute clean debate. It seems to me that unless one enters the clean debate section with the spirit of engaging in clean debate, then it is quite a stretch to ask others to follow suit. As such, I am offering the following as suggestions for encouraging the debate to be clean:

1 -- do not divide people into two camps while maligning one of them. This isn't cowboys and Indians, folks.

2 -- do not denigrate in preemptive fashion either the intelligence or morality of those who might disagree .

3 -- avoid childish, hyperbolic and hyper-emotional statements that only act to incite. Appeal to intellect, not gut reaction.

4 -- do not expect an echo chamber and insist all who do not agree should go away or shut up.

5 -- do not treat the clean debate section as your own, personal soap box or as a way to avoid responsibility for saying outrageous things.

6 -- Display at least some understanding of the subject matter you wish to discuss.

Any other ideas as to how to make the clean debate forum a place for actual clean debate?

I think those are great suggestions.

I would add, be careful in your choice of subject matter and how you frame it. Some topics are just too inflammatory to work in CDZ, others might be but if you frame them well - they can encourage discussion rather than reaction.

Is the OP going to immediately put a group on the defensive or is it going to encourage that group to discuss?

The whole idea about CDZ is to promote discussion in a civil and respectful way - thought the rules don't explicitely state can't do this, insulting or putting down an entire group is not going to promote civil discussion.

Sometimes a good rule of thumb is - how would I feel if xyz were directed at me?

If a poster going out of their way to insult an entire group of people is objectionable, do you believe it makes for wise site policy to then reward them for it, especially considering they are injecting such into a thread for the sole purpose of trolling?

I'm not sure what you mean by rewarding them for it - and do you mean in the CDZ, in general?

Well, say for instance one poster trolls a thread in the clean debate section by referring to one specific country as being unique in a certain very negative way -- one country has a culture that revels in this perfidy as part of their culture. The poster offers no evidence, makes no rational case for why this is so, but merely makes up a bunch of stuff consistent with their well-established pattern of hatred against this country -- a hatred so intense that their very avatar involves defecating upon this country.

A second poster comes along and calls them on it, points out that they are not telling the truth and says that they probably have not been in the country. If mods eliminate this response while keeping not only the trolling posts but the subsequent reply to it, how can this be seen as anything but an endorsement of the trolling? It seems to me that punishing the RESPONSE to trolling while protecting the trolling sends quite the wrong message if, in fact, clean debate is the actual goal here.

 

[Coyote]

It's really hard for me to tell because so much of CDZ is contextual and trolling is a subjective term. If for example someone posted an OP in CDZ that was essentially a rant against a country, or full of canards and stereotype - then that topic might be removed. Individual posts depending on how they are worded are given a little more latitude than might be given to the OP - as long as there is no flaming or putting down of members or derailing off topic.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's really hard for me to tell because so much of CDZ is contextual and trolling is a subjective term. If for example someone posted an OP in CDZ that was essentially a rant against a country, or full of canards and stereotype - then that topic might be removed. Individual posts depending on how they are worded are given a little more latitude than might be given to the OP - as long as there is no flaming or putting down of members or derailing off topic.

I'm looking for a principle here, and I am not sure I have found one. Is it only some identities that are fair game or are all fair game in the clean debate forum? if an Arab poster opened up a clean debate topic and did so in a sincere fashion, would it be o.k. for a poster to say Arabs are goat fuckers? If a black poster opened up a post in an intellectually honest fashion and a poster referred to blacks disparagingly, would that be o.k.?

I'm trying to find continuity here, because when a person A is given carte blanche to malign in any way they see fit, but person B is censored simply for replying that they are just making up shit in order to malign, then there seems to be NO principles applied.

How is this clean debate when flame zone behavior is allowed for select individuals, but those who object to such are censored heavily and for much less?

 

[yiostheoy]

Like I said, only use logic, always provide links to your citations, and never use fallacies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[Picaro]

Like I said, only use logic, always provide links to your citations, and never use fallacies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Some of those types listed can also be valid arguments as well. 'Logic' only works when all the terms are carefully defined beforehand, in which case any error in definitions will merely compound itself; 'logic' is itself just another form of circular reasoning at the end of the day, which is mostly desirable in a philosophy such as scientific empiricism based on the ability of experiments to be repeated by others, but not all that impressive in real life debates, since the 'evidence' is always malleable and incomplete on many issues like politics and economics. Computer programs will perform perfectly 'logically' whether the data variables entered are valid or not, for instance; the old phrase 'garbage in garbage out' comes to mind here.

F.A.Hayek has some interesting commentary on why 'rationalism' doesn't really exist and fails repeatedly as a methodology applied to social problems and ideologies in his book The Fatal Conceit, and why such philosophies like Judeo-Christianity are still around and useful as cultural guidelines, as opposed to those which depend on materialism, like Marxism and laissez faire capitalism and other right wing fantasies, aren't even remotely 'logical' in real life results. Henry George, Mill, and other economists also have a lot to say about the importance of morality and cultural values to economic health and success as well. 'Logic' isn't automatically 'right', and in fact often wrong. Such 'illogical' social mores provide an common cultural anchor anchor for societies to fall back on when all else fails, and allows a society to rebuild itself and make 'adjustments' and have another go at it.