What is "debate"? An FYI

[MeBelle]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

I am all for it. However, given that academia and any serious discussion of theory, issues and controversy cannot be had without a set of boundaries, this will fail unless a set of acceptable sources for information is accepted.

To simply say that you must support your argument and debate points with facts and/or links to supporting evidence is not enough. There must be limits placed on what will be acceptable sources of information. Bias exists everywhere, but it is no more prevalent than in the media.

Acceptable sources of information and research MUST be established prior to any real debate, or the entire premise fails.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am all for it. However, given that academia and any serious discussion of theory, issues and controversy cannot be had without a set of boundaries, this will fail unless a set of acceptable sources for information is accepted.

To simply say that you must support your argument and debate points with facts and/or links to supporting evidence is not enough. There must be limits placed on what will be acceptable sources of information. Bias exists everywhere, but it is no more prevalent than in the media.

Acceptable sources of information and research MUST be established prior to any real debate, or the entire premise fails.

If you are conducting a formal debate yes. But as I have tried to get across, formal debate does not work well in the message board format. Members come and go to the thread and there can be long lapses between posts with multiple other members chiming in during the interim. And with the vast resources available to us on the internet, establishing a limited list of acceptable sources would be really short sighted.

I think those interested in participating in civil debate are capable of judging whether a source is acceptable and are capable of civilly explaining why they do not consider a source credible.

It isn't as if anybody is going to be declaring a winner and handing out medals.

 

[Darkwind]

I am all for it. However, given that academia and any serious discussion of theory, issues and controversy cannot be had without a set of boundaries, this will fail unless a set of acceptable sources for information is accepted.

To simply say that you must support your argument and debate points with facts and/or links to supporting evidence is not enough. There must be limits placed on what will be acceptable sources of information. Bias exists everywhere, but it is no more prevalent than in the media.

Acceptable sources of information and research MUST be established prior to any real debate, or the entire premise fails.

If you are conducting a formal debate yes. But as I have tried to get across, formal debate does not work well in the message board format. Members come and go to the thread and there can be long lapses between posts with multiple other members chiming in during the interim. And with the vast resources available to us on the internet, establishing a limited list of acceptable sources would be really short sighted.

I think those interested in participating in civil debate are capable of judging whether a source is acceptable and are capable of civilly explaining why they do not consider a source credible.

It isn't as if anybody is going to be declaring a winner and handing out medals.

I disagree.

There really is only a direction of truth, but that direction and the facts that surround the issue are just those. Tangible facts.

The rest of it is spin and outright lies.

Why should I bother to engague in what is termed "clean debate" without at the minimum, establishing some ground rules and boundaries.

Besides, what is the difference if it is face to face or online? The issue is framed, the pros and cons are established and then people stand up to make their case.

In the end, it is a debate. Not a Policy session which will determine the outcome of peoples fate.

 

[Si modo]

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion. It doesn't have to be formal.

 

[Darkwind]

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion. It doesn't have to be formal.

Well, I agree.

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum. In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people it seems, and a conclusion, chased down from a premise, based upon evidence provided, does not seem to qualify anymore.

So, I personally (there is no force of requirement obviously) would like to see limits placed upon the sources of information that can be used.

There are far to many biased sources (both left and right) and to many agenda's to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Hell, our esteemed professors in our universities require the students to use only those sources they deem acceptable.

 

[Si modo]

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion. It doesn't have to be formal.

Well, I agree.

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum. In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people it seems, and a conclusion, chased down from a premise, based upon evidence provided, does not seem to qualify anymore.

So, I personally (there is no force of requirement obviously) would like to see limits placed upon the sources of information that can be used.

There are far to many biased sources (both left and right) and to many agenda's to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Hell, our esteemed professors in our universities require the students to use only those sources they deem acceptable.

Logic, like mathematics, is specific and exact.

If it means something other than what it is, that is simple ignorance on the part of the interpreter. 2+5=7 is just the way it is - the rules are specific and definite in both math and logic.

 

[Darkwind]

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion. It doesn't have to be formal.

Well, I agree.

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum. In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people it seems, and a conclusion, chased down from a premise, based upon evidence provided, does not seem to qualify anymore.

So, I personally (there is no force of requirement obviously) would like to see limits placed upon the sources of information that can be used.

There are far to many biased sources (both left and right) and to many agenda's to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Hell, our esteemed professors in our universities require the students to use only those sources they deem acceptable.

Logic, like mathematics, is specific and exact.

If it means something other than what it is, that is simple ignorance on the part of the interpreter. 2+5=7 is just the way it is - the rules are specific and definite in both math and logic.

Then explain Politics and the art of spin.

 

[Si modo]

Well, I agree.

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum. In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people it seems, and a conclusion, chased down from a premise, based upon evidence provided, does not seem to qualify anymore.

So, I personally (there is no force of requirement obviously) would like to see limits placed upon the sources of information that can be used.

There are far to many biased sources (both left and right) and to many agenda's to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Hell, our esteemed professors in our universities require the students to use only those sources they deem acceptable.

Logic, like mathematics, is specific and exact.

If it means something other than what it is, that is simple ignorance on the part of the interpreter. 2+5=7 is just the way it is - the rules are specific and definite in both math and logic.

Then explain Politics and the art of spin.

The last time I saw politics follow logic is.....................

Ummmm.................


Er....................

Never.

 

[Darkwind]

Logic, like mathematics, is specific and exact.

If it means something other than what it is, that is simple ignorance on the part of the interpreter. 2+5=7 is just the way it is - the rules are specific and definite in both math and logic.

Then explain Politics and the art of spin.

The last time I saw politics follow logic is.....................

Ummmm.................


Er....................

Never.

The prosecution rests....

 

[there4eyeM]

Politics...logic...?
It is illogical to link the two.

 

[Dante]

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion. It doesn't have to be formal.

Well, I agree.

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum. In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people...

Logic? When posts contain references and wild accusations that take a thread off topic, what would you do? Would you ask (politely) that people provide a credible source and stay on topic or leave? What would you do if that course of action was edited and penalized while explicit insults like (dolt) were left unedited?

Would you then believe there is any sincerity to have a Clean Zone?

 

[Dante]

Well, I agree.

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum. In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people it seems, and a conclusion, chased down from a premise, based upon evidence provided, does not seem to qualify anymore.

So, I personally (there is no force of requirement obviously) would like to see limits placed upon the sources of information that can be used.

There are far to many biased sources (both left and right) and to many agenda's to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Hell, our esteemed professors in our universities require the students to use only those sources they deem acceptable.

Logic, like mathematics, is specific and exact.

If it means something other than what it is, that is simple ignorance on the part of the interpreter. 2+5=7 is just the way it is - the rules are specific and definite in both math and logic.

Then explain Politics and the art of spin.

Spin deals with facts. It is not lying through omission, which is propaganda. Spinning is an art. People do it all the time when dealt a bad hand.

Politics is the art of compromise. Without compromise there would be no Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederacy, or US Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are, however, logical conclusions to be drawn from observation, discussion, and development of arguments. And it is these logical conclusions that makes a discussion whether it be politics or socioeconomic issues or moral imperative or whatever interesting to discuss. You start making a discussion nothing more than a battle of links and cut and paste, most of which dissolve into a squabble of which sources are credible and which are not, and the thread either dies or becomes just another food fight.

Sure if the OP is a statement such as "Harry Reid Accuses Mitt Romney of not releasing tax forms because he paid no taxes in prior years", a link to a source for such an provocative statement is in order.

My thread on the New Emancipation Proclamation is wholly my own creation, however, and no link exists, though I am prepared to defend every statement in it. In the politics forum, I am pretty sure it would have already drawn the usual detractors and trouble makers to disrupt the good discussion in progress. In the CDZ we don't have to put up with that.

And it is great. And even without a lot of links and cut and pastes, we are having a good give and take discussion.

Too many 'rules' can spoil the soup just as not following ANY rules.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

People seem to be trying to pass debates as pasted news articles with 2 sentences of the poster's opinion lol.

 

[Dante]

There are, however, logical conclusions to be drawn from observation, discussion, and development of arguments. And it is these logical conclusions that makes a discussion whether it be politics or socioeconomic issues or moral imperative or whatever interesting to discuss. You start making a discussion nothing more than a battle of links and cut and paste, most of which dissolve into a squabble of which sources are credible and which are not, and the thread either dies or becomes just another food fight.

Sure if the OP is a statement such as "Harry Reid Accuses Mitt Romney of not releasing tax forms because he paid no taxes in prior years", a link to a source for such an provocative statement is in order.

My thread on the New Emancipation Proclamation is wholly my own creation, however, and no link exists, though I am prepared to defend every statement in it. In the politics forum, I am pretty sure it would have already drawn the usual detractors and trouble makers to disrupt the good discussion in progress. In the CDZ we don't have to put up with that.

And it is great. And even without a lot of links and cut and pastes, we are having a good give and take discussion.

Too many 'rules' can spoil the soup just as not following ANY rules.

I started up an old thread revisited asking if President Obama deserved credit for saving GM. Along the way accusations of Obama and the IRS doing illegal things took thread the off topic. Comments asking people to stay on topic were edited out. A specific insult (dolt) was not edited out.

The thread time line became unintelligible...no one could enter and follow it.

Why bother? Why attempt a discussion when asking people to stay on topic (without insults) is edited out?

Why bother?

how can a vibrant community exist when it is given no voice and no respect?

 

[Foxfyre]

I and several other people have good threads out there that were so messed up by the trolls and detractors that those who created them abandoned them and they went by the wayside way ahead of their prime. I would very much like to re-create two or three those from scratch so they could actually be discussed. I wouldn't want them brought with edits to the CDZ because they wouldn't make any sense with half the dscussion removed as you say. Some of those I might start over under a new heading though.

Even in my Emancipation Proclamation thread previously mentioned, there are good points being made that are straying off the topic. It requires skill of the thread starter and a few others participating to bring the train back onto the tracks and not allow the discussion to become a mishmash of unrelated topics. But in the message board format, it also requires skills from the readers to see how widely separated but related concepts fit together.

The thread will either work because the participants grasp the concept or it won't. That is something that is really beyond any of our control.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What I think is tricky is to have a conversation with someone about a topic, and have the mind go off on a related topic.

That's what happens to me, or I'll get interested in some aspect of a person's post that may not be exactly on target. It's not a deliberate attempt to ruin the thread. It's just the way my mind processes.

 

[California Girl]

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion. It doesn't have to be formal.

Yea... that would be great... but, frankly, more than half the posters here will struggle with the first part, so the second is waaaaay too much to hope for.

 

[Liability]

A little off topic:

I just put up a post. I then realized that this was in the Zone of Cleanliness. So, my edit was a delete.

Has any body else suddenly realized that -- oops -- this isn't the right place for this post?