Raising the level of debate rather than members' blood pressure

[MAllie]

I hope this won't come across as patronising (but, hey, I'm willing to risk it). It seems to me that the level of debate on some threads in this forum, especially the political ones, is pretty woeful. This is a real pity, as there are some wise and witty folk on here.

I went to college at 50 to study philosophy, so I at least know what a good argument looks like. I dug up some links for anyone else who would like to study up or refresh him or herself on the subject. The first two show in a fun way how not to do it, while the second two may go some way towards redressing the balance. For those who have found the time and inclination to work their way through these, there's lots of other good stuff to be found on the web, especially under Philosophical Argument.

http://www.ninjapirate.com/logic.html
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1998/argue.html
http://abcteach.com/free/u/unit_fallacies_middle_one.pdf
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=499

[randomo]

Woeful indeed! And I majored in philosophy many years ago, and was an officer of our college debate team, so I too have some idea of good arguments vs. weak arguments (vs. trolling, of which there is also far too much here).

But I fear your pleas will fall largely on deaf ears. Most of the people who use personal attacks as a substitute for logic do so knowingly and with no real intention of educating or persuading others.

Of course, this is hardly unique to DNForum; it is, rather, a sad reflection of the current state of political discourse in my country and probably many others.

(And people wonder why the best & brightest don't go into public service ....)

[biggedon]

I hope this won't come across as patronising (but, hey, I'm willing to risk it). It seems to me that the level of debate on some threads in this forum, especially the political ones, is pretty woeful. This is a real pity, as there are some wise and witty folk on here.

I went to college at 50 to study philosophy, so I at least know what a good argument looks like. I dug up some links for anyone else who would like to study up or refresh him or herself on the subject. The first two show in a fun way how not to do it, while the second two may go some way towards redressing the balance. For those who have found the time and inclination to work their way through these, there's lots of other good stuff to be found on the web, especially under Philosophical Argument.

http://www.ninjapirate.com/logic.html
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1998/argue.html
http://abcteach.com/free/u/unit_fallacies_middle_one.pdf
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=499

Woeful indeed! And I majored in philosophy many years ago, and was an officer of our college debate team, so I too have some idea of good arguments vs. weak arguments (vs. trolling, of which there is also far too much here).

But I fear your pleas will fall largely on deaf ears. Most of the people who use personal attacks as a substitute for logic do so knowingly and with no real intention of educating or persuading others.

Of course, this is hardly unique to DNForum; it is, rather, a sad reflection of the current state of political discourse in my country and probably many others.

(And people wonder why the best & brightest don't go into public service ....)

i too studied philosophy, logic, even psychology


if you start with a flawed premise, your whole argument is a fallacy



imo...

[Infoproliferati]

It takes a mature mind to debate without having to throw mud around. People hang on to beliefs as if they are absolute truths and as a result are unwilling to heed different arguments. I think the lack of courteousness stems from the desire to be right all the time. No one can be right all the time.

And it isn't only on online forums. Watch any news channel where experts are invited to voice their perspectives, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC etc. I'm shocked at how unwilling debaters are willing to listen. Debaters or panelists interrupt each other all the time, with no regard whatsoever for varying opinions.

How a person debates speaks volumes about the person's character, even more so than beliefs.

[hawkeye]

It takes a mature mind to debate without having to throw mud around. People hang on to beliefs as if they are absolute truths and as a result are unwilling to heed different arguments. I think the lack of courteousness stems from the desire to be right all the time. No one can be right all the time.
And it isn't only on online forums. Watch any news channel where experts are invited to voice their perspectives, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC etc. I'm shocked at how unwilling debaters are willing to listen. Debaters or panelists interrupt each other all the time, with no regard whatsoever for varying opinions.

How a person debates speaks volumes about the person's character, even more so than beliefs.

This is exactly what is wrong with our country, our political system, our citizenry, and the world unfortunately. No one wants to compromise on 'anything', and they totally denounce those that don't see things their way! What a sad state of affairs this country is headed for.. "I don't care what you want, or what's fair, .. It's my way, or die..!"

..just not good.

[Acro]

You guys suck.








Just kidding

[MAllie]

You guys suck.

Just kidding

Just as well you're joking, because otherwise we'd be looking for evidence for that statement.

[Acro]

What I meant to say is that a perfect, civilized, controlled debate is utopian*.

*From the Greek negation "Oυ" and "Τόπος" (place) - the place that does not exist.

[MAllie]

What I meant to say is that a perfect, civilized, controlled debate is utopian*.

*From the Greek negation "Oυ" and "Τόπος" (place) - the place that does not exist.

Can you back up your opinion that no 'perfect, civilized, controlled debate' ever takes place?

We 'guys' will examine your evidence and let you know how we evaluate it.

I actually think it would be pretty impossible to prove that no such debate takes place, while all that is required to prove that it does is evidence (by reliable witness, video footage or whatever) of reasoned debate between at least two people speaking anywhere in the world on on any topic without resorting to violence or talking over each other.

[Acro]

Simple: in an open, non-controlled environment you are bound to invite - whether you like it or not - external elements that do not share your methodology of delivering an argument.

[Gerry]

Can you back up your opinion that no 'perfect, civilized, controlled debate' ever takes place?

OMG! You are reminding me of the "if-then" speeches/topics from my college days! (One of the best instructors I ever had)

[MAllie]

Simple: in an open, non-controlled environment you are bound to invite - whether you like it or not - external elements that do not share your methodology of delivering an argument.

Just because 'an open, non-controlled environment' might invite such elements doesn't mean every debate has been disrupted by them. Just one debate that fulfils your original criteria and your argument is lost.

Besides which, why does a debate have to take place in 'an open, non-controlled environment'? A public debate, for example, could be well-organised enough to avoid this situation, while a private debate between any two people anywhere in the world could take place without anyone else being aware of it, and thus it would not risk being affected by any element outside it.

[Acro]

I speak about practicality. Obviously, you started this thread to differentiate from other heated and "blood pressure raising" threads in the Politics/Controversial forum. I understand that you dislike the route taken in those threads and debates, but let's face it, a live debate cannot be clean-cut and civilized per your specs - unless you control it 100% which means you'd have to moderate every comment. But then that's not a true debate, it's a monitored discussion with censorship. A perfect environment is a Utopia or a Dictatorship.

[katherine]

"You're either with us or against us".

[MAllie]

What I meant to say is that a perfect, civilized, controlled debate is utopian*.

*From the Greek negation "Oυ" and "Τόπος" (place) - the place that does not exist.

Well, if you look at your original words quoted above, there is no mention there of 'live debate.' And yes, you are right about my being prompted to post because of my dislike of the unreasoned invective that has appeared in other threads. It had occurred to me, though, that perhaps this wasn't intentional, and was merely the result of members not realising that what they said should be backed up by offering factual evidence for their statements - attacking the argument rather than the person making it.

However, it now occurs to me that what you and I have been having here is a reasoned, civilised debate, with each of us commenting on the other's statements rather than the other's personality, history or looks. I therefore wish to claim that a 'perfect, civilized, controlled debate' is not utopian and does in fact exist here.

If you wish to dispute this I will, of course, be happy to listen to your further arguments.

[Acro]

The problem seems to be related to the subject of a debate. In this current thread, we are not really debating much over something specific, just analyzing what constitutes proper discussion, whether civility could be maintained etc. But try to maintain the same results in any subject included in the Politics/Controversial forum and I can assure you, your current claim will be utopian

So yes, I understand where you're coming from but at the same time I think Politics/Controversial is more or less a venting forum that its moderators often permit things to get way off track and personal mud-slinging ensues; once that critical mass is reached, then the thread is closed - until a new one is started by the usual suspects

[MAllie]

The problem seems to be related to the subject of a debate. In this current thread, we are not really debating much over something specific, just analyzing what constitutes proper discussion, whether civility could be maintained etc. But try to maintain the same results in any subject included in the Politics/Controversial forum and I can assure you, your current claim will be utopian

So yes, I understand where you're coming from but at the same time I think Politics/Controversial is more or less a venting forum that its moderators often permit things to get way off track and personal mud-slinging ensues; once that critical mass is reached, then the thread is closed - until a new one is started by the usual suspects

I don't actually see a problem with our debate, except that it is perhaps quite boring for people without the 'mud-slinging.' So you think that these threads provide a venting service? Perhaps they do to those venting, but for someone reading them they can be rather distasteful (speaking only from personal experience here, admittedly). No doubt some will say, 'Well, why bother to go on reading, then?' My answer to this would be that I don't like to feel there is anywhere on the forum where I can't go, the more especially since I've paid for the privilege. The Exclusive area is an exception, of course, as I am keeping myself out of that by not yet being prepared to pay to upgrade.

[CureCancer]

In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny.
John Stuart Mill

View on freedom of speech

An influential advocate of freedom of speech, Mill objected to censorship. He says: "I choose, by preference the cases which are least favourable to me - In which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on truth and that of utility, is considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions. However positive anyone's persuasion may be, not only of the faculty but of the pernicious consequences, but (to adopt expressions which I altogether condemn) the immorality and impiety of opinion. - yet if, in pursuance of that private judgement, though backed by the public judgement of his country or contemporaries, he prevents the opinion from being heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility. And so far from the assumption being less objectionable or less dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the case of all others in which it is most fatal.

[Acro]

The title "Politics/Controversial" almost ensures that there will be controversy, which is defined not just as the subject itself but also by the maintained level of conversations. Surely, it's not as bad as e.g. the venting forum F*ckYou.com (it's a real forum made for just inane cussing and venting off) but I would not have high expectations about quality of discussion either. People tend to be rather polarized, e.g. when discussing politics; the rest is a byproduct of each political party's beliefs or positions on social issues. I think there's less arguments about football than politics, for that reason; hence my belief that the level of a debate is related to its subject.

[MAllie]

"You're either with us or against us".

Do you believe this, katherine, or are you just throwing it in as an example of a specious statement?

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

The title "Politics/Controversial" almost ensures that there will be controversy, which is defined not just as the subject itself but also by the maintained level of conversations. Surely, it's not as bad as e.g. the venting forum F*ckYou.com (it's a real forum made for just inane cussing and venting off) but I would not have high expectations about quality of discussion either. People tend to be rather polarized, e.g. when discussing politics; the rest is a byproduct of each political party's beliefs or positions on social issues. I think there's less arguments about football than politics, for that reason; hence my belief that the level of a debate is related to its subject.

There is no doubt that certain topics such as politics and religion do invite controversy, partly because of how deeply people feel about these things, but just because discussions might not be as bad here as on the venting forum you mention doesn't mean that they can't be better. I don't buy either that the level of debate is related to the subject. There is no reason this should be the case and every reason it shouldn't, if the people arguing - whether about football, religion or the academic standards in American colleges - are prepared to engage in reasoned debate for which they provide sound arguments.