What is "debate"? An FYI

[Michelle420]

I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.

I prefer a discussion/dialogue format myself, mostly because I am not good at arguing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.

I prefer a discussion/dialogue format myself, mostly because I am not good at arguing.

But even a discussion/dialogue format involving people with opposing points of view is still an argument. The trick though is focusing on making the most persuasive points to defend your own point of view, and, as necessary, challenging the point of view of the other. Too many people don't know how to do that without insulting somebody or something rather than making a case for why a point of view is wrong. Or right for that matter.

And every now then, two competent 'debaters' will come to realize that even though they started out as adversaries, neither was necessarily wrong.

I do agree that formal debate rules and format on a message board don't work all that well. Thus a message board 'debate' will be more of a discussion format. But the principle of what is competent argument applies here just as much as in a formal debate.

 

[Michelle420]

I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.

I prefer a discussion/dialogue format myself, mostly because I am not good at arguing.

But even a discussion/dialogue format involving people with opposing points of view is still an argument. The trick though is focusing on making the most persuasive points to defend your own point of view, and, as necessary, challenging the point of view of the other. Too many people don't know how to do that without insulting somebody or something rather than making a case for why a point of view is wrong. Or right for that matter.

And every now then, two competent 'debaters' will come to realize that even though they started out as adversaries, neither was necessarily wrong.

I do agree that formal debate rules and format on a message board don't work all that well. Thus a message board 'debate' will be more of a discussion format. But the principle of what is competent argument applies here just as much as in a formal debate.

I have a pretty bad temper offline, those who are closest to me have said the number one thing I need to work on is patience.

I try to be polite online but I steer away from topics that I know will cause me to react immature.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.

I prefer a discussion/dialogue format myself, mostly because I am not good at arguing.

But even a discussion/dialogue format involving people with opposing points of view is still an argument. The trick though is focusing on making the most persuasive points to defend your own point of view, and, as necessary, challenging the point of view of the other. Too many people don't know how to do that without insulting somebody or something rather than making a case for why a point of view is wrong. Or right for that matter.

And every now then, two competent 'debaters' will come to realize that even though they started out as adversaries, neither was necessarily wrong.

I do agree that formal debate rules and format on a message board don't work all that well. Thus a message board 'debate' will be more of a discussion format. But the principle of what is competent argument applies here just as much as in a formal debate.

I have a pretty bad temper offline, those who are closest to me have said the number one thing I need to work on is patience.

I try to be polite online but I steer away from topics that I know will cause me to react immature.

LOL. At least you're brutally honest about it. Actually I have found participating on message boards has helped me hone my skills somewhat. It is tough, specially when you're the only one on a thread arguing a point of view and pretty much everybody else is taking the opposite point of view. It really keeps you on your toes to counter all the opposing arguments being thrown at you. And if they make it personal, especially personally insulting, it is really REALLY difficult not to be drawn into immature behavior. I have probably deleted more retorts over the years than those I actually hit the 'submit reply' button.

My motto is "Don't argue with idiots, don't feed the trolls, and don't engage in exercises of futility." I'm getting better at keeping that too. I manage to do it about 25% of the time now.

 

[asaratis]

Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.

DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.

I spent some time at a formal debate site wherein two debaters and a moderator participated in formal debate with certain hard rules. There was usually a trio of judges that determined the winner of that debate. Since they were judging the effectiveness of the debater and not the correctness of claims made, it was often that the declared winner had not convinced the judges that he was right...he'd just used proper debate techniques throughout the bout.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.

DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.

I spent some time at a formal debate site wherein two debaters and a moderator participated in formal debate with certain hard rules. There was usually a trio of judges that determined the winner of that debate. Since they were judging the effectiveness of the debater and not the correctness of claims made, it was often that the declared winner had not convinced the judges that he was right...he'd just used proper debate techniques throughout the bout.

Unfortunately that is the downside of formal debate. When we judge a debate we judge on technique and effectiveness in application of the rules and presentation moreso than on how persuasive the argument actually is at arriving at the truth of the matter. The person with a brillian argument can totally blow it by wandering into logical fallacies or ad hominem that is effectively countered by his/her opponent.

For me, opposing arguments on a message board serve two purposes:

1. If it is something I care deeply about or is especially important to me, I do hope to educate at least some people on a particular perspective. There is so much disinformation being distributed out there, and so much of it is no more than assigned talking points and intentional propaganda to sway public opinion, that many don't really have a chance to see something in any other way.

2. It forces me to defend my point of view and, if I cannot do that effectively, it helps me realize that my point of view is lacking and I need to rethink it. I can't tell you how many times I started typing out an argument to defend or oppose something, and found that I could not do it with any intellectual honesty. So I delete the text I have created and it is back to the drawing board.

 

[Circe]

I have a question in this context --- what is a "troll"?

These days, that is. Early on a troll was pretty narrowly defined -- someone who comes onto a message board simply to stir up trouble, to throw the cat among the pigeons, such as someone getting on a Christian list and posting blatently anti-Christian posts in order to produce upset argument and fighting.

Nowadays "troll" seems to be used as an all-purpose insult, like Nazi or Communist used to be, then facist. I get called a troll often, but I don't know why! I don't know what it means anymore, unless it simply means somebody the namecaller disagrees with.

So what does "don't feed the trolls" mean, anyone have a clear concept of that?

 

[Underhill]

I have a question in this context --- what is a "troll"?

These days, that is. Early on a troll was pretty narrowly defined -- someone who comes onto a message board simply to stir up trouble, to throw the cat among the pigeons, such as someone getting on a Christian list and posting blatently anti-Christian posts in order to produce upset argument and fighting.

Nowadays "troll" seems to be used as an all-purpose insult, like Nazi or Communist used to be, then facist. I get called a troll often, but I don't know why! I don't know what it means anymore, unless it simply means somebody the namecaller disagrees with.

So what does "don't feed the trolls" mean, anyone have a clear concept of that?

I think your original definition still holds or should.

But many people do use the term as a general insult and often just because they disagree with you.

It can also be hard to tell the difference. Let me explain.

This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues. Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition. When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine. I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up.

And I was. If all you do here is discuss things with people who agree with you, chances are you won't be around long. So looking for a debate or discussion can be troll like, the difference is in the techniques used.

Someone looking for real debate post opinions designed to further conversation. A troll simply post looking for a reaction. But the line can be fuzzy at times.

 

[Circe]

This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues. Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition. When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine. I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up.

And I was. If all you do here is discuss things with people who agree with you, chances are you won't be around long. So looking for a debate or discussion can be troll like, the difference is in the techniques used.

Someone looking for real debate post opinions designed to further conversation. A troll simply post looking for a reaction. But the line can be fuzzy at times.

Yeah.....There are forums or threads which have a dominant political membership, right or left, and they may well not want discussion! They want an amen corner. They want approval and agreement and if anything, they want someone to rachet up the heat -- in the direction they approve.

I don't know why we assume people WANT debate or discussion. They may not want that at all. I've been reading about the French Revolution: if you had gone into one of the many coffee shops that served as the forums of the day and attempted to discuss the monarchical side of the question, or even if you went in dressed as upperclass after 1789, you'd have been beaten up, at best -- they didn't want discussion! They wanted revolution.

I am not at all sure people want debate and discussion. They may simply want to hang out with like-minded people. In that case, anyone questioning the dominant ideas will be hated and destroyed or banished, if possible.

 

[Underhill]

This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues. Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition. When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine. I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up.

And I was. If all you do here is discuss things with people who agree with you, chances are you won't be around long. So looking for a debate or discussion can be troll like, the difference is in the techniques used.

Someone looking for real debate post opinions designed to further conversation. A troll simply post looking for a reaction. But the line can be fuzzy at times.

Yeah.....There are forums or threads which have a dominant political membership, right or left, and they may well not want discussion! They want an amen corner. They want approval and agreement and if anything, they want someone to rachet up the heat -- in the direction they approve.

I don't know why we assume people WANT debate or discussion. They may not want that at all. I've been reading about the French Revolution: if you had gone into one of the many coffee shops that served as the forums of the day and attempted to discuss the monarchical side of the question, or even if you went in dressed as upperclass after 1789, you'd have been beaten up, at best -- they didn't want discussion! They wanted revolution.

I am not at all sure people want debate and discussion. They may simply want to hang out with like-minded people. In that case, anyone questioning the dominant ideas will be hated and destroyed or banished, if possible.

That's why I have limited most of my post to this section of the forum.

I have not learned the layout of the place yet and so far have not received much in the way of welcome when I posted legitimate opinions in other sections. I would go so far as to say at least 4 out of 5 responses were verbal attacks. I even had several send me nasty PM's.

So I suspect you are right.

 

[Circe]

That's why I have limited most of my post to this section of the forum.

I have not learned the layout of the place yet and so far have not received much in the way of welcome when I posted legitimate opinions in other sections. I would go so far as to say at least 4 out of 5 responses were verbal attacks. I even had several send me nasty PM's.

So I suspect you are right.

Well, this place may be out of control; I gather it is, from the strong efforts being made by the mods to get it under control and make some changes for the better. Several nasty private messages is bad! The only time I saw that going on was years (okay, decades) ago on the Ms. Forum. That's poison pen stuff and that needs to be stopped. I hope and assume this software allows turning off PMs and Ignoring people at need. I haven't had occasion to check yet.

It may well be that gated communities are needed, a lowerclass and an upperclass forum, the lowerclass one for the one-line misspelled insult posters. Apparently millions of people love to do that, and they do it all over the Internet, what can one say??!

Here's my new idea: "Home on the Range" forums. One for the right, one for the left, "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word/And the skies are not cloudy all day." These forums would be for people who really don't want to discuss: they want to affirm and be affirmed in their partisan posture. Anyone who brings up the antithesis of what people want to believe in the forum would be considered a troll and thread-banned.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a question in this context --- what is a "troll"?

These days, that is. Early on a troll was pretty narrowly defined -- someone who comes onto a message board simply to stir up trouble, to throw the cat among the pigeons, such as someone getting on a Christian list and posting blatently anti-Christian posts in order to produce upset argument and fighting.

Nowadays "troll" seems to be used as an all-purpose insult, like Nazi or Communist used to be, then facist. I get called a troll often, but I don't know why! I don't know what it means anymore, unless it simply means somebody the namecaller disagrees with.

So what does "don't feed the trolls" mean, anyone have a clear concept of that?

In my opinion there are two kinds of trolls.

The first are the ones the new Politics Forum rule are intended to deal with--those who have no interest in the topic but get their jollies doing drive by one liner insults or smart aleck comments unrelated to the topic. In themselves these aren't so much of a problem, but if other members respond to them in any way, the thread can quickly dissolve into a food fight to the point those wishing to engage in substantive discussion leave the thread to look for something more substantive.

The second are more subtle. These are people who enjoy pulling people's chains and derailing a thread, most especially if they don't like the person who started the thread or don't like the topic. They are very good at knowing just what buttons to push and what code words or phrases to throw out there to accomplish their goal. Trolling for sure, but a more sophisticated kind of trolling. It does effectively sidetrack what otherwise could have been a good discussion.

But don't worry about the numbnuts who call you 'troll'. It is a standard personal insult just like 'racist' or "Nazi" or 'idiot' or 'moron' etc. used for anybody who expresses an opinion they disagree with. You don't feed such trolls by not allowing yourself to be drawn into their web but by simply refocusing on the topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues. Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition. When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine. I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up.

And I was. If all you do here is discuss things with people who agree with you, chances are you won't be around long. So looking for a debate or discussion can be troll like, the difference is in the techniques used.

Someone looking for real debate post opinions designed to further conversation. A troll simply post looking for a reaction. But the line can be fuzzy at times.

Yeah.....There are forums or threads which have a dominant political membership, right or left, and they may well not want discussion! They want an amen corner. They want approval and agreement and if anything, they want someone to rachet up the heat -- in the direction they approve.

I don't know why we assume people WANT debate or discussion. They may not want that at all. I've been reading about the French Revolution: if you had gone into one of the many coffee shops that served as the forums of the day and attempted to discuss the monarchical side of the question, or even if you went in dressed as upperclass after 1789, you'd have been beaten up, at best -- they didn't want discussion! They wanted revolution.

I am not at all sure people want debate and discussion. They may simply want to hang out with like-minded people. In that case, anyone questioning the dominant ideas will be hated and destroyed or banished, if possible.

That's why I have limited most of my post to this section of the forum.

I have not learned the layout of the place yet and so far have not received much in the way of welcome when I posted legitimate opinions in other sections. I would go so far as to say at least 4 out of 5 responses were verbal attacks. I even had several send me nasty PM's.

So I suspect you are right.

I certainly hope that this was not the experience you had with me. I very much enjoyed going toe to toe with you on another thread discussing what is one of the more volatile topics. We found areas of agreement and some areas on which we could amicably disagree.

There are a number of members on USMB who can effectively argue an opposing point of view without becoming personally insulting and at least most, if not all of those, do a better job of it than I do. I will admit that you pretty much have to hunt for them though.

 

[Underhill]

Yeah.....There are forums or threads which have a dominant political membership, right or left, and they may well not want discussion! They want an amen corner. They want approval and agreement and if anything, they want someone to rachet up the heat -- in the direction they approve.

I don't know why we assume people WANT debate or discussion. They may not want that at all. I've been reading about the French Revolution: if you had gone into one of the many coffee shops that served as the forums of the day and attempted to discuss the monarchical side of the question, or even if you went in dressed as upperclass after 1789, you'd have been beaten up, at best -- they didn't want discussion! They wanted revolution.

I am not at all sure people want debate and discussion. They may simply want to hang out with like-minded people. In that case, anyone questioning the dominant ideas will be hated and destroyed or banished, if possible.

That's why I have limited most of my post to this section of the forum.

I have not learned the layout of the place yet and so far have not received much in the way of welcome when I posted legitimate opinions in other sections. I would go so far as to say at least 4 out of 5 responses were verbal attacks. I even had several send me nasty PM's.

So I suspect you are right.

I certainly hope that this was not the experience you had with me. I very much enjoyed going toe to toe with you on another thread discussing what is one of the more volatile topics. We found areas of agreement and some areas on which we could amicably disagree.

There are a number of members on USMB who can effectively argue an opposing point of view without becoming personally insulting and at least most, if not all of those, do a better job of it than I do. I will admit that you pretty much have to hunt for them though.

No, that debate was within the CDZ.

My experience was in the common politics area when I tried to engage people with what I consider my moderate stance on gun politics. You would have thought I suggested we take away Grandma's Social Security from the reactions I received.

 

[Circe]

My experience was in the common politics area when I tried to engage people with what I consider my moderate stance on gun politics. You would have thought I suggested we take away Grandma's Social Security from the reactions I received.

"Moderate" simply means both sides hate you ----- I realized that to my sorrow years ago.

 

[Underhill]

My experience was in the common politics area when I tried to engage people with what I consider my moderate stance on gun politics. You would have thought I suggested we take away Grandma's Social Security from the reactions I received.

"Moderate" simply means both sides hate you ----- I realized that to my sorrow years ago.

This is true on the internet. Out in the real world I suspect it is where most people are...

 

[Foxfyre]

And of course it also depends on one's definition of moderate.

To one person 'moderate' means without conviction or somebody without a clue or somebody willing to play both ends against the middle.

To another 'moderate' means a willingness to compromise.

To another, 'moderate' means going with whatever the polls deem the most advantageous view on any given day.

To another, 'moderate' means anything other than a wingnut extremist.

And the dichotomy is amplified when the 'moderates' themselves have a hard time defining it.

I honestly don't know whether I am 'moderate' or not. I try not to pick a side until I am convinced of the side with most merit. Those who hate me think I'm an extremist. Those who don't usually don't. So, I have found the best choice for me is to not allow others to define me. But oh my, how they do try.

For me, a 'moderate' is somebody who is capable of arguing against another person's point of view without having to insult that person and/or his/her political party or group, etc. and who doesn't need to use perjoratives to make a point. A non moderate considers anything opposing his/her point of view to be a perjorative.

 

[Underhill]

And of course it also depends on one's definition of moderate.

To one person 'moderate' means without conviction or somebody without a clue or somebody willing to play both ends against the middle.

To another 'moderate' means a willingness to compromise.

To another, 'moderate' means going with whatever the polls deem the most advantageous view on any given day.

To another, 'moderate' means anything other than a wingnut extremist.

And the dichotomy is amplified when the 'moderates' themselves have a hard time defining it.

I honestly don't know whether I am 'moderate' or not. I try not to pick a side until I am convinced of the side with most merit. Those who hate me think I'm an extremist. Those who don't usually don't. So, I have found the best choice for me is to not allow others to define me. But oh my, how they do try.

For me, a 'moderate' is somebody who is capable of arguing against another person's point of view without having to insult that person and/or his/her political party or group, etc. and who doesn't need to use perjoratives to make a point. A non moderate considers anything opposing his/her point of view to be a perjorative.

My definition of a moderate is a bit different, although I take your point and agree with the premise.

I think a moderate is someone who doesn't have a side. Who sees things they like and dislike on both sides of the aisle. Sometimes thinking that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Examples abound. Gun control. I don't think guns should be taken away but that their should be more regulation. Abortion, I am not against all abortion but would like to see us take steps to reduce it as much as possible. Fiscal policy, I think both sides have screwed us, just with different garden tools.

And there are things I side with one side or the other on. Drilling and fracking I come down on the side of the left. But I see most other 'green' energy (windmills and solar) as largely a fringe activity that will never be mainstream.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I have very strong views, but they really don't fit either side of the spectrum. I probably lean slightly to the left. But I'm certainly no far left democrat.

I'm actually registered as a republican because local elections are all decided in republican primaries.

 

[Circe]

My definition of a moderate is a bit different, although I take your point and agree with the premise.

I think a moderate is someone who doesn't have a side. Who sees things they like and dislike on both sides of the aisle. Sometimes thinking that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Examples abound. Gun control. I don't think guns should be taken away but that their should be more regulation. Abortion, I am not against all abortion but would like to see us take steps to reduce it as much as possible. Fiscal policy, I think both sides have screwed us, just with different garden tools.

And there are things I side with one side or the other on. Drilling and fracking I come down on the side of the left. But I see most other 'green' energy (windmills and solar) as largely a fringe activity that will never be mainstream.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I have very strong views, but they really don't fit either side of the spectrum. I probably lean slightly to the left. But I'm certainly no far left democrat.

I'm actually registered as a republican because local elections are all decided in republican primaries.

I agree that to me moderate means strong opinions ---- but not ones that line up on one side or other of today's partisan divide. I'm pro-choice but anti-welfare. I'm against gun craziness like assault weapons and big collections, but I'm for private and uncontrolled ownership of more "normal" guns as tools.

"Moderate" may simply mean for us not joining a team. Teams are big these days. People badly want to be able to categorize everyone as pure left or pure right. One of us, or the enemy.

 

[Underhill]

"Moderate" may simply mean for us not joining a team. Teams are big these days. People badly want to be able to categorize everyone as pure left or pure right. One of us, or the enemy.

Yep. So far as I'm concerned both teams are pretty fucked up at the moment...

It's the frustration of our republic and probably among the biggest failures of the founding fathers (as Jefferson predicted it would be). The 2 party system has been a disaster.