What is "debate"? An FYI

[Foxfyre]

Moderate to me doesn't mean strong opinions though. Most people who claim to be moderates tend to be wishy washy and quite 'flexible' (i.e. opportunisiticly dishonest) in the stances they take on things. What you guys (Underhill and Circe) are talking about is holding convictions about things that don't easily fit into the partisan mold. That is a very different thing than being 'moderate' which is too often taking the side that is the most advantageous and not really giving a damn about whether it is the most defensable point of view.

If you mean you refuse to be identified as partisan, then I too am a moderate. I get equally pissed at either side when I think they're wrong. And I will defend the one who I think makes the most sense or who I think is being accused wrongly regardless of whether he or she has a "D" or "R" or "L" or "I" after his/her name. I am non partisan though. Not moderate.

 

[Circe]

Moderate to me doesn't mean strong opinions though. Most people who claim to be moderates tend to be wishy washy and quite 'flexible' (i.e. opportunisiticly dishonest) in the stances they take on things. What you guys (Underhill and Circe) are talking about is holding convictions about things that don't easily fit into the partisan mold. That is a very different thing than being 'moderate' which is too often taking the side that is the most advantageous and not really giving a damn about whether it is the most defensable point of view.

If you mean you refuse to be identified as partisan, then I too am a moderate. I get equally pissed at either side when I think they're wrong. And I will defend the one who I think makes the most sense or who I think is being accused wrongly regardless of whether he or she has a "D" or "R" or "L" or "I" after his/her name. I am non partisan though. Not moderate.

Okay, I think you are right. I haven't been satisfied with the term "moderate" for some time -- I don't FEEL moderate. I think I'll switch to non-partisan like you call it.

The Economist years ago begged Americans to stop saying "liberal" and "conservative" and just say left and right because in England liberal often means the exact opposite of what it means here -- it's a term that has become very confused, for sure. I thought they were correct and have said left and right instead ever since!

 

[Underhill]

Moderate to me doesn't mean strong opinions though. Most people who claim to be moderates tend to be wishy washy and quite 'flexible' (i.e. opportunisiticly dishonest) in the stances they take on things. What you guys (Underhill and Circe) are talking about is holding convictions about things that don't easily fit into the partisan mold. That is a very different thing than being 'moderate' which is too often taking the side that is the most advantageous and not really giving a damn about whether it is the most defensable point of view.

If you mean you refuse to be identified as partisan, then I too am a moderate. I get equally pissed at either side when I think they're wrong. And I will defend the one who I think makes the most sense or who I think is being accused wrongly regardless of whether he or she has a "D" or "R" or "L" or "I" after his/her name. I am non partisan though. Not moderate.

I think you have that backward.

The true definition of a moderate is much closer to what I described. But many attempt to portray us as the latter in an attempt to reinforce their party loyalty.

The definition for the noun in Websters is: A person who holds moderate views, esp. in politics.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

9. Once the person making the claim has met his obligation (to the burden of proof) by providing corroborative citations or evidence, the "burden of proof" now shifts to the "objector" of that claim, to prove their objection has merit and is not frivolous.


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.

Once the person making the claim has met his obligation (to the burden of proof) by providing corroborative citations or evidence, the "burden of proof" now shifts to the "objector" of that claim, to prove their objection has merit and is not frivolous.

Simply objecting to a claim without any reason to believe it was false, is not a valid rebuttal.

 

[PaulS1950]

I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:

I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
I agree that having the same rights for GLBT folks as for the vanilla folks (like me) is only right. I don't believe the government should be given the power of life and death - certainly not where the life of an unborn child is concerned.
I am an "anti-federalist". I believe the central government of America has proven that no body of politicians can be trusted to hold the rights of the governed over their own selfish interests. I also believe that this extends to the state level as well.
I believe that the constitution is as valid today as it was when it was first written, and that it should be enforced and protected.

So, what am I?

 

[Underhill]

I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:

I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
I agree that having the same rights for GLBT folks as for the vanilla folks (like me) is only right. I don't believe the government should be given the power of life and death - certainly not where the life of an unborn child is concerned.
I am an "anti-federalist". I believe the central government of America has proven that no body of politicians can be trusted to hold the rights of the governed over their own selfish interests. I also believe that this extends to the state level as well.
I believe that the constitution is as valid today as it was when it was first written, and that it should be enforced and protected.

A Ron Paul fan?

 

[Circe]

I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:

I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
I agree that having the same rights for GLBT folks as for the vanilla folks (like me) is only right. I don't believe the government should be given the power of life and death - certainly not where the life of an unborn child is concerned.
I am an "anti-federalist". I believe the central government of America has proven that no body of politicians can be trusted to hold the rights of the governed over their own selfish interests. I also believe that this extends to the state level as well.
I believe that the constitution is as valid today as it was when it was first written, and that it should be enforced and protected.

So, what am I?

I think you are a Libertarian, mostly....I'm not sure about the abortion stance, unless you mean exactly what you said, that the government should not be in the business of requiring women to abort, as they too often do in China, one reads. If that is just code for wanting laws against women's right to decide, that would not be Libertarian, obviously. Otherwise it's a fairly consistent Libertarian posture, I would say.

 

[PaulS1950]

My stance on abortion is a major conflict, albeit an internal conflict. I am a minister and have my own belief (faith) of when a human life is formed but I am not limited to thinking that my morality should extend to others. Since the mother, and father in some circumstances, are the only two people who can know all the details of the decision it must be left to her or them.

I do not exclude the father because sometimes the father wants the child when the mother can't afford it - obviously not in a marrital situation - and the father has to have some say in the decision. I firmly believe however that the mother has the final word in most all abortions.

A Libertarian, you say.... Ok, I can accept that. I will have to study their platform and get involved if it fits as well as you two seem to think.

 

[Circe]

Is this "clean debate" forum actually being moderated, monitored?

I'm getting neg-repping, insults, name-calling by the usual types --- what's the point of having such a forum if it's as bad as the other forums?

 

[Foxfyre]

If you have been neg repped in the CDZ, you should report the neg rep as that is clearly a violation of the rules for this forum. You will see the little red thingee that is the report button in the upper righthand corner of the notice you got of the rep. In the box for reason you're reporting the neg rep, just type in something like you received this in the CDZ.

 

[Foxfyre]

I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:

I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
I agree that having the same rights for GLBT folks as for the vanilla folks (like me) is only right. I don't believe the government should be given the power of life and death - certainly not where the life of an unborn child is concerned.
I am an "anti-federalist". I believe the central government of America has proven that no body of politicians can be trusted to hold the rights of the governed over their own selfish interests. I also believe that this extends to the state level as well.
I believe that the constitution is as valid today as it was when it was first written, and that it should be enforced and protected.

So, what am I?

I would define you as a Classical Liberal aka libertarian (little 'L") unless you think the role of the federal government is to assign the 'equal' rights that we will have. If you are in that camp, then you would probably be something that doesn't really have a label.

 

[PaulS1950]

Foxfyre,
I don't believe the federal or state governments have any power to "assign" rights - only the requirement to defend those rights with which we are born. Some of those rights are enumerated in the bill of rights but not all - that is why the 9th amendment was put in place.
As I said - I label myself as an anti-federalist. I don't believe a central federal government can be trusted and I don't believe there should be a central government. I believe that we have the communication resources needed to govern ourselves in the fashion of a true republic. Our founding fathers did the best they could with a representative republic but time has proven that representatives look out for their own interests before the interests of the nation or it's people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre,
I don't believe the federal or state governments have any power to "assign" rights - only the requirement to defend those rights with which we are born. Some of those rights are enumerated in the bill of rights but not all - that is why the 9th amendment was put in place.
As I said - I label myself as an anti-federalist. I don't believe a central federal government can be trusted and I don't believe there should be a central government. I believe that we have the communication resources needed to govern ourselves in the fashion of a true republic. Our founding fathers did the best they could with a representative republic but time has proven that representatives look out for their own interests before the interests of the nation or it's people.

Yes they do because over the decades we have given them more and more power to control and 'take care' of us which of necessity becomes giving them the power to assign the rights we will have. If we the people would return the Federal government to its original purpose of providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare equally), and securing our God given rights and otherwise leave us alone to form the kind of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose, the representative would again look out for the country instead of special interests.

 

[PaulS1950]

Foxfyre,
I don't believe the federal or state governments have any power to "assign" rights - only the requirement to defend those rights with which we are born. Some of those rights are enumerated in the bill of rights but not all - that is why the 9th amendment was put in place.
As I said - I label myself as an anti-federalist. I don't believe a central federal government can be trusted and I don't believe there should be a central government. I believe that we have the communication resources needed to govern ourselves in the fashion of a true republic. Our founding fathers did the best they could with a representative republic but time has proven that representatives look out for their own interests before the interests of the nation or it's people.

Yes they do because over the decades we have given them more and more power to control and 'take care' of us which of necessity becomes giving them the power to assign the rights we will have. If we the people would return the Federal government to its original purpose of providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare equally), and securing our God given rights and otherwise leave us alone to form the kind of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose, the representative would again look out for the country instead of special interests.

You really believe that? The constitution assigns the powers of the federal government - not the people. It would take an amendment to grant more power to the federal government - they can't just take that power - that would be unconstitutional and unlawful.

 

[Circe]

I have a question --- what happens to the threads that are "moved"? I participated in the "Who Are Our Enemies" thread, but I found it gone today and I couldn't find it when I searched the forum. And may I ask why they are moved or closed out, if that is what happened? I'm curious.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre,
I don't believe the federal or state governments have any power to "assign" rights - only the requirement to defend those rights with which we are born. Some of those rights are enumerated in the bill of rights but not all - that is why the 9th amendment was put in place.
As I said - I label myself as an anti-federalist. I don't believe a central federal government can be trusted and I don't believe there should be a central government. I believe that we have the communication resources needed to govern ourselves in the fashion of a true republic. Our founding fathers did the best they could with a representative republic but time has proven that representatives look out for their own interests before the interests of the nation or it's people.

Yes they do because over the decades we have given them more and more power to control and 'take care' of us which of necessity becomes giving them the power to assign the rights we will have. If we the people would return the Federal government to its original purpose of providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare equally), and securing our God given rights and otherwise leave us alone to form the kind of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose, the representative would again look out for the country instead of special interests.

You really believe that? The constitution assigns the powers of the federal government - not the people. It would take an amendment to grant more power to the federal government - they can't just take that power - that would be unconstitutional and unlawful.

No, it only took Teddy Roosevelt to reinterpret the original intent of the Constitution--to see the Constitution as allowing the Federal government to do whatever the Constitution does not expressly prohibit. The Founders intended the Federal government to have only the power it is expressly given in the Constitution.

Ever since that reinterpretation, the snowball of ever increasing government power, and ever fewer rights given the people, was set in motion and has been gaining size and speed ever since. And those in government began putting less and less importance on what is best for the government and more importance on what is good for government. Now the snowball has become a behemoth flattening anything that gets in its way, and those in government exist mostly to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and fortunes at our expense.

The only way to stop it is to take away the ability of those in government ti increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and fortunes at our expense. And if that can be done at all, I believe this is the last generation that will have any chance to do it. And it may already be too late. We may have already crushed the great nation the Founders intended us to be.

EDIT: And whoops, though we have been demonstrating how civil debate of opposing points of view can be accomplished, we should refocus on the thread topic as we have managed to completely derail the train.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a question --- what happens to the threads that are "moved"? I participated in the "Who Are Our Enemies" thread, but I found it gone today and I couldn't find it when I searched the forum. And may I ask why they are moved or closed out, if that is what happened? I'm curious.

Threads are apparently moved for a number of reasons. If you have your preferences set to automatically subscribe to a thread you participate in, you can find it by going to your UserCp and then the Your Subscriptions button. If it isn't there or you get an error message when you click on it, the thread has likely been deleted. Otherwise you should find it no matter where it got moved.

 

[Amelia]

I have a question --- what happens to the threads that are "moved"? I participated in the "Who Are Our Enemies" thread, but I found it gone today and I couldn't find it when I searched the forum. And may I ask why they are moved or closed out, if that is what happened? I'm curious.

Sometimes they get "moved" into a forum which only mods can see, not us civilians.

 

[Wiseacre]

If anyone has a question about the rules they should PM a Mod/Admin of their choice. You may or may not get all the specifics of a particular action or like the answer, but you will get a response.

 

[Listening]

A bump.