Debates Section Pole...Kepp it or Lose it?

[Balagor]

>snip<

And a note to Balagor, I make a point of looking for your posts. I find them refreshing and interesting. They always bring something new to the table. Language has nothing to do with the issues here. You stick with the subject and you tend to keep us on track more often than not. :thumbsup:

 

Thanks, Granny, and see it only takes a few seconds to do a >snip<, and it´s a lot more "reader friendly" :thumbsup:

 

EDIT: by "reader friendly" I mean without what has no relavence for the post!

[Lisnpuppy]

Granny...you got distracted by the shiny ignore button. You didn't say anything about my last post..though sounds like you intended to. Ha ha

 

I am not trying to get you to comment on it hun, I just thought that was funny.

 

You and for the love of little green apples....just reference the post you want not the hundred copied before. I must say my eyes roll back in my head and I don't read those sometimes. Geez

 

*hugs*

[ginnyfizz]

Amen to all the quotes within quotes within quotes thing, it does dilute the argument made by the quoter.

 

Another thing that I think should be refrained from is members telling each other how to debate - that's the staff's job. I get sick and tired of threads turning into "meh that's a logical fallacy you're spouting" just because someone doesn't agree with a particular view. Frankly I DO think that people like to throw in the term logical fallacy sometimes when they feel they might just be on the back foot and have no other counter. And because it sounds smart, they think.

 

Let's be fair, everyone has their own ideas and ways and means of debating. As I said before, I struggle with the conception that many on here have that a real life experience or anecdote is no substitute for theoretical discussion. If that were the case, then why, when a case goes to court for example, and in appeal hearings in particular which are effectively debates, do we lawyers quote case law (real life experience and anecdotes in action...)in order to back up our argument with fact?

[grannywils]

@LisnPuppy you are so right, I got so caught up in the dang button stuff I forgot what I meant to say about your post (blushes profusely). Sorry, hon, it comes with age you know?

 

Anyway, I wanted to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of writing out a response on Word or Notepad first. It helps me to gather my thoughts (and check my spelling :whistling: ), and it also helps me to maintain my composure during those more heated moments. But as you have suggested, sometimes the button does help me to maintain my sanity (upon which I sometimes have a very fragile grip these days :blush: .)

 

In addition there have been many times when I have written something and not pushed the reply button. Just vent and delete. Good therapy, but not for publication.

 

The point of all this was to say that as usual my dear you were right on the money.

 

@Ginnyfizz, you too are right on the money. I see no reason why a certain limited amount of personal experience should not be acceptable as long as it does not become the focal point of the debate. And I also agree that it should be up to the moderators to determine how we should debate. I for one, do not need (in my opinion) some mindless twit telling me what I may and may not do. The moderators know what they are doing, and I respect their judgement. If they say so, I will listen. Everyone else need not bother.

 

[stars2heaven]

I don't find any of the options appealing. Just because people aren't always able to debate professionally doesn't mean real debates don't take place here.

 

Also, I don't understand the ignore thing I've been reading about here. I would never consider ignoring someone in a debate forum. What's the point? If you post in a debate forum it should be with the expectation that someone will disagree with you, attack what you say, and/or try to get you to support what you say. If you can't deal with that, don't post.

Edited October 5, 2011 by stars2heaven

[Aurielius]

I am responding to posters in this thread in no particular hierarchical order, so bear with me.

 

@Balagor

You and I only occasionally agree on issues but I always read your posts (even in threads of low interest to me). We both are open to the concept that there might be a kernel of truth in the others point of view. You may not have redirected the course of my ideological river but at times you have opened up a side stream of alternate perspective. The point I'm am making is that with some posters that is an option..real dialog of opposing views with mutual respect. BUT we do have a core of posters that want to win and that is their only concern, so for several weeks I have reinstated the use of my Ignore Button to bypass what is essentially a fruitless exercise. There is always the option of reading their post on a case by case basis so it is not exile to debating Devil's Island.

 

@Kendo & Ginnyfizz

Though in most respects we are on the same ideological page I do at times diverge from your perspectives but at least I know when reading something you post it is something that you actually believe in. We have some that just like to play Devil's Advocate here for the dubious pleasure of seeing their name in print and circle like hyenas trying to drag a lion down by endless repetitive posts saying the exact same thing with little or nothing new to add. I laughed when I read Ginny's comment on the use of 'Logic' to take down another's point of view, as if the progenitors of this had exclusive arbiters rights to the concept, it's a ploy and one that is wearing thin. As we (those that have been educated in the UK) well know, Coventry is a most effective tool in dealing with an intentionally disruptive element.

 

@Grannywills & LIsnpuppy

I am in total accord with the concept of editing a post reply, having to wade through pages and pages of past posts to read only a one or two line snippet is more than aggravating. I think both of you show courtesy and honesty in your posts and read them whether I agree with you or not. When we disagree it's a civil discourse, even when you politely tell me that you think I'm being an ass, which makes me step back and ponder whether you are right. I think we share a similar view of the ignore button as an Option not a permanent recourse, with room to reconsider if the situation warrants.

 

@pseudobio & sendo75

I understand your concerns about exclusionary practices but this thread is more about dealing with people who think that the forum is their private sandbox/soapbox and have publically gloated about running their opponents off the forums. There has been all to much vitriol in the debates in recent months that could have been avoided if people simply ignored those that aggravated them past the point of civil discourse. I am not taking the moral high ground because if I had used 'ignore' more consistently I would not have run afoul of the forum rules myself. It was actually a friend and a moderator who suggested to me that if couldn't control myself then maybe I should just use it's (ignore) function. It was very sound advice, I no longer mind because they no longer matter.

 

@Staff

I have always not envied your task of wading through the forum squabbles, it must be mind numbing to have to do so. I may or may not have agreed with your calls but that is not my province, it's yours. I think that what most of the posters in this thread are attempting is to return to a level of civil discourse that once was more in evidence than is current. Having read through the TOS several times I am under the impression that we are well within the protocols of this site to ignore someone. It is my hope that this will make your life simpler by not having to adjudicate needless open forum bickering.

 

@The Ignored Users

This forum is open to all including those of you I choose to no longer read, reply or quote. It is my prerogative to make that decision as it is yours to do the same. Some of you I never read and others I opt to read on occasion and actually respond to what I believe is a good point in your post. Those of us that are opting to go this route are certainly not the majority of this forum so I doubt that you will much affected. You wanted to win at all costs and now you may consider that you have won a Pyhrric victory of sorts.

[marharth]

Making the assumption that I want to win simply because I stand strong by my argument is foolish.

 

That being said if people continue to post in topics without any idea what they are about simply based on the title, I won't have to worry about their immaturity anymore.

 

One problem I am seeing is that people assume people do not like others because we have opposed views. That is not true at all. I agree with quite a few posters here, and disagree with just as many. It has nothing to do with opposing someones views, its how they respond to it.

 

The problem is when someone replies to a post without even responding to their argument, and simply say a bunch of insulting crap. The problem gets bigger when those people gain support for some insane reason.

 

 

I think I have pretty much posted my full opinion on the subject now, but I doubt that it will get through to anyone.

Edited October 5, 2011 by marharth

[lukertin]

If that were the case, then why, when a case goes to court for example, and in appeal hearings in particular which are effectively debates, do we lawyers quote case law (real life experience and anecdotes in action...)in order to back up our argument with fact?

 

Not really, in an appellate hearing lawyers don't quote case law to prove their argument for the purpose of using real life experience and anecdotes...http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2005/SJC_09436.html example of oral hearings in an appellate court.

 

Amen to all the quotes within quotes within quotes thing, it does dilute the argument made by the quoter.

What really dilutes a poster's argument is when a responder hits the reply button and writes a general rebuttal...nobody reading the response knows what part of the original post the responder concedes, or disputes, or thinks is irrelevant. Which sentence of your response corresponds with which sentence in the original post? How do you expect people to follow up in a coherent fashion?

 

Anyway the problem you mention is pretty easy to fix just by modifying the forum script to only quote back 1 level...plenty of forums do this and if a lot of people really feel that it is a problem, it could be implemented.

Edited October 5, 2011 by lukertin

[Kendo 2]

*opens Aurielius' Book of Big Words*

 

Pyrrhic :laugh:

[marharth]

One more thing, another problem I see is two pages of people saying "I agree" in different ways.

 

EDIT: I just changed my vote. This section will never work as it is intended to.

Edited October 5, 2011 by marharth