Debate Now Logical Debate Forum?

[jwoodie]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

 

[Anomalism]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

That would be a huge clusterfuck pain in the ass. It'd also be heavily subject to bias. Trying to control the conversation is stupid.

 

[luiza]

Ambition is to be applauded . But you cannot fire guns without ammunition .
This is a centre for old dodderers to chat and be silly.
And they do and are . Even some of we women occasionally .

 

[Votto]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

Racist

Besides, January 6th

 

[konradv]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

Sounds like a good idea, but would require heavy moderation, since many on the board don't have a clue as to what proper logic is.

 

[jwoodie]

That would be a huge clusterfuck pain in the ass. It'd also be heavily subject to bias. Trying to control the conversation is stupid.

OK, you are excused.

 

[Anomalism]

Sounds like a good idea, but would require heavy moderation, since many on the board don't have a clue as to what proper logic is.

You would have to designate arbiters of logic and reason. That won't work. Lol

 

[konradv]

You would have to designate arbiters of logic and reason. That won't work. Lol

That's why I thought it wouldn't work. Who would want that headache for no pay?

 

[Anomalism]

That's why I thought it wouldn't work. Who would that headache for no pay?

And who has the right? Logic and reason can be subjective. Reality can be subjective. Who is actually arrogant enough to believe they can even do that job? It's a recipe for an echo chamber.

 

[jwoodie]

But you cannot fire guns without ammunition .

Nice metaphor!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

That might be difficult to do.

Actual debate consists of advancing an argument regardless of one’s personal opinion – a conservative would aggressively and in good faith argue in support of an assault weapon ban; a liberal would aggressively and in good faith argue in support of banning abortion.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

That's basically the CDZ

 

[konradv]

And who has the right? Logic and reason can be subjective. Reality can be subjective. Who is actually arrogant enough to believe they can even do that job? It's a recipe for an echo chamber.

Logic isn't subjective. It's a rigorous subject with lots of rules to know. So the problem isn't with the moderation per se, but the fact there probably isn't anyone in the membership with the breadth of knowledge to do it correctly. What I see is a lot of people thinking what they're saying is logical, while breaking a lot of the rules of proper logical discourse. Given that and and the difficulty of being strict about logic, I see it degenerating to the same level as other forums.

 

[Anomalism]

That's basically the CDZ

Nah, it's not. He wants posts removed based on the judgement that they're not logical or reasonable. Who is best suited to do that? I don't know. Probably him if you ask him. Obviously as the one with the idea he's the perfect candidate.

 

[Anomalism]

Logic isn't subjective.

Never? And in politics especially?

Interesting...

 

[Votto]

You would have to designate arbiters of logic and reason. That won't work. Lol

Do you even know what an arbiter is?

Are you a biologist?

 

[Anomalism]

Do you even know what an arbiter is?

Yes. Do you?

 

[jwoodie]

And who has the right? Logic and reason can be subjective. Reality can be subjective. Who is actually arrogant enough to believe they can even do that job? It's a recipe for an echo chamber.

1. Who has the right? Irrelevant
2. Logic can be subjective. Rules of logic are precise.
3. Subjective reality is an oxymoron.
4. Who is actually arrogant? Irrelevant
5. It's a recipe for an echo chamber. Mixed metaphor

Any other questions?

 

[Votto]

Yes. Do you?

It's complicated.

I know of 10 different pronouns we can use depending on their state of mind if they are, indeed, and arbiter.

 

[Anomalism]

1. Who has the right? Irrelevant
2. Logic can be subjective. Rules of logic are precise.
3. Subjective reality is an oxymoron.
4. Who is actually arrogant? Irrelevant
5. It's a recipe for an echo chamber. Mixed metaphor

Any other questions?

You don't seem very logical to me.