What is "debate"? An FYI

[California Girl]

So far, a link to a ridiculously biased site... the HuffPuff... and a reference to Mitt as 'the rat' in a clean debate title. I'm not seeing anything other than same ole, same ole here. Of course, it does assist the intellectually challenged to whine without risking being called out on their whining.

 

[koshergrl]

And multiple threads with no clear premise, and zero supporting evidence.

Unsubscribed.

 

[BDBoop]

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.

Exactly. I am far from the only one who has noticed there are great minds on this board, but they got in the habit of "everybody who looks like you, and the horse you rode in on" - and calling THAT debating.

Nor is it debating to jump from thread to thread mocking and maligning the OP, yet the biggest sobbing sisters on this board are doing exactly that.

It will take time, but this little folder is already on page two of new threads, so I think she's got a shot.

 

[Amelia]

 

[Foxfyre]

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.

Exactly. I am far from the only one who has noticed there are great minds on this board, but they got in the habit of "everybody who looks like you, and the horse you rode in on" - and calling THAT debating.

Nor is it debating to jump from thread to thread mocking and maligning the OP, yet the biggest sobbing sisters on this board are doing exactly that.

It will take time, but this little folder is already on page two of new threads, so I think she's got a shot.

There is always the risk of spamming the forum with meaningless threads too or subject matter that is not conducive to a good exchange of differing points of view. Hopefully those will go by the wayside and that too will encourage people to put more effort into their O.P. in a way to facilitiate a good discussion instead of just hammering home a biased point of view.

And while we all won't be interested in every subject, if we all don't make an effort to support those threads with well thought out and competent O.P.'s, it will take the Forum a lot longer to really get off the ground.

There will absolutely be a learning curve here for many who have never even tried the concept, and it will take a bit for many to grasp the principles involved and get into the spirit of the thing. Hopefully we will be allowed time for that to happen.

 

[California Girl]

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.

And that is my point. A proper debate forum is not a cut and paste from the HuffPuff with no opinion from the thread starter. That's just hiding behind rules because the OP is not capable of defending his/her position without regurgitating. Proper debate is intellectually stimulating... and that is not what this forum is.

 

[Liability]

Assert a fact or three. Be prepared to back up, support and link to prove those facts.

Apply the facts to a logical syllogism. It isn't magic and it need not be all that difficult.

Offer the conclusion as now being "established."

The counter-arguments should be able to either attack the truth value of the alleged facts (preferably with links that aren't just opinion pieces). Or, the counter-argument could instead attack the logical validity (the invalidity) of the logic contained within the syllogism. Then, the counter-argument could dispute the validity of the conclusion.

All mortals are beings who although alive will some day be dead.

Men are mortal.

My dog is mortal.

Therefore my dog is a man.

All of the first three factual assertions are TRUE. There is NO logical connection, however, between those FACTS and the proposed "conclusion." It is an invalid argument AND the conclusion itself is FALSE.

 

[Amelia]

Assert a fact or three. Be prepared to back up, support and link to prove those facts.

Apply the facts to a logical syllogism. It isn't magic and it need not be all that difficult.

Offer the conclusion as now being "established."

The counter-arguments should be able to either attack the truth value of the alleged facts (preferably with links that aren't just opinion pieces). Or, the counter-argument could instead attack the logical validity (the invalidity) of the logic contained within the syllogism. Then, the counter-argument could dispute the validity of the conclusion.

All mortals are beings who although alive will some day be dead.

Men are mortal.

My dog is mortal.

Therefore my dog is a man.

All of the first three factual assertions are TRUE. There is NO logical connection, however, between those FACTS and the proposed "conclusion." It is an invalid argument AND the conclusion itself is FALSE.

But who's going to inform the dog?

 

[Liability]

Assert a fact or three. Be prepared to back up, support and link to prove those facts.

Apply the facts to a logical syllogism. It isn't magic and it need not be all that difficult.

Offer the conclusion as now being "established."

The counter-arguments should be able to either attack the truth value of the alleged facts (preferably with links that aren't just opinion pieces). Or, the counter-argument could instead attack the logical validity (the invalidity) of the logic contained within the syllogism. Then, the counter-argument could dispute the validity of the conclusion.

All mortals are beings who although alive will some day be dead.

Men are mortal.

My dog is mortal.

Therefore my dog is a man.

All of the first three factual assertions are TRUE. There is NO logical connection, however, between those FACTS and the proposed "conclusion." It is an invalid argument AND the conclusion itself is FALSE.

But who's going to inform the dog?

I like to keep the bitches in the dark!

 

[Foxfyre]

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.

And that is my point. A proper debate forum is not a cut and paste from the HuffPuff with no opinion from the thread starter. That's just hiding behind rules because the OP is not capable of defending his/her position without regurgitating. Proper debate is intellectually stimulating... and that is not what this forum is.

It is all in one's definition of what a 'proper debate forum' is. If we get a place where civil discussion can take place, I will be a happy camper. Those who want a formal debate forum may also get their wish--it's a free country--but I've already experienced that and it hasn't worked out very well anywhere it has been tried on a message board format.

Self moderation, praising those who get into the spirit, leading and teaching by example is the only way it will work. Insulting and diminishing those who haven't yet grasped the concept but are not technically breaking the rules is the surest way to make it fail.

 

[there4eyeM]

The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.

 

[Amelia]

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.

And that is my point. A proper debate forum is not a cut and paste from the HuffPuff with no opinion from the thread starter. That's just hiding behind rules because the OP is not capable of defending his/her position without regurgitating. Proper debate is intellectually stimulating... and that is not what this forum is.

It is all in one's definition of what a 'proper debate forum' is. If we get a place where civil discussion can take place, I will be a happy camper. Those who want a formal debate forum may also get their wish--it's a free country--but I've already experienced that and it hasn't worked out very well anywhere it has been tried on a message board format.

Self moderation, praising those who get into the spirit, leading and teaching by example is the only way it will work. Insulting and diminishing those who haven't yet grasped the concept but are not technically breaking the rules is the surest way to make it fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.

But they don't have to. Some of our most combative members have the ability to articulate a civilly expressed point of view if they wish to do so.

Maybe the issue is more the semantics than anything else? CK, maybe change the word 'debate' to 'discussion' would help so that wouldn't be such a source of apparent angst? I am not going to apologize for preferring threads that aren't intended to be automatic flame fields or preferring discussions that don't inevitably dissolve into ad hominem and food fights and insult fests. And I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing the mods to dispense any necessary discipline rather than want that to be my privilege and/or responsibility to do so.

 

[Dante]

Debates as practiced in class or debating societies are not about truth or facts. They are usually about winning an argument with tactics and strategies.

Winning a debate doesn't always equal being correct or right. Propagandists can and do win debates. Lying through omission can win one a debate.

 

[Dante]

IMHO, it comes down to keeping an open mind not only on what someone else posts, but what you posted also. I am frequently wrong, and not ashamed to admit it.

Other thing is, if someone posts something you disagree with, you have every right to make an opposing case. But you shouldn't be trying to denigrate or marginalize what someone else has written; most of the time there is a kernal of truth in it.

Kernels of truth aren't the type of truths people are seeking. Kernels of truth? Nazis were good, they made the trains run on time.

 

[Amelia]

The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.

But they don't have to. Some of our most combative members have the ability to articulate a civilly expressed point of view if they wish to do so.

Maybe the issue is more the semantics than anything else? CK, maybe change the word 'debate' to 'discussion' would help so that wouldn't be such a source of apparent angst? I am not going to apologize for preferring threads that aren't intended to be automatic flame fields or preferring discussions that don't inevitably dissolve into ad hominem and food fights and insult fests. And I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing the mods to dispense any necessary discipline rather than want that to be my privilege and/or responsibility to do so.

Good suggestion. People seem to be getting snagged on the term "debate".

 

[Sky Dancer]

How about just stating your view and the reasons you have for it?

 

[Foxfyre]

The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.

But they don't have to. Some of our most combative members have the ability to articulate a civilly expressed point of view if they wish to do so.

Maybe the issue is more the semantics than anything else? CK, maybe change the word 'debate' to 'discussion' would help so that wouldn't be such a source of apparent angst? I am not going to apologize for preferring threads that aren't intended to be automatic flame fields or preferring discussions that don't inevitably dissolve into ad hominem and food fights and insult fests. And I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing the mods to dispense any necessary discipline rather than want that to be my privilege and/or responsibility to do so.

Good suggestion. People seem to be getting snagged on the term "debate".

Yes, that seems to be the primary burr under everybody's saddle.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste. Now THAT is boring beyond belief. I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support. Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me. If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source. If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.

And that is my point. A proper debate forum is not a cut and paste from the HuffPuff with no opinion from the thread starter. That's just hiding behind rules because the OP is not capable of defending his/her position without regurgitating. Proper debate is intellectually stimulating... and that is not what this forum is.

Well I am currently engaged in a few discussion in this forum that I find quite intellectually stimulating and I am thoroughly enjoying them. So again I suppose it is how either of us would define that. And I am really REALLY enjoying not having to worry about the trolls and disrupters showing up to derail them. I'm liking that a lot.

But hey, nothing is everybody's cup of tea. Those who don't like the idea of the CDZ certainly have lots and lots of other places to do their thing. But I do rather resent being referred to by various derogatory characterizations because I enjoy a Forum like this and I really wish more people would adopt a live and let live attitude about it.

I have suggested that CK substitute "discussion" for the term "debate" to remove that as a bone of contention.

In fact, to remove two bones of contention, suggest renaming it CIVIL DISCUSSION ZONE with the same guidelines/rules in place.

 

[Ava]

Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1. DEBATE involves critical thought. Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism. Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources. Use logic to make your arguments. Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a. Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b. Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c. Support, support, support.
d. Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e. Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2. Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks. The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3. DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion. And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4. Read the posts carefully - listen carefully. Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5. Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant. Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6. Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7. Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.). Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.


Just a start. Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great. The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.

In debate, it is important to remember that you, and the point you are making are two different things. Two things many people lose sight of.