Debate tactics in PO

[NaplesX]

I have always been under the impression that debate was a vehicle for agreement - the outcome of honest debate should reveal at least some agreement. Let's face it, pointing out where you disagree is easy.

So, in order to help to those ends, I propose we discuss the tactics used here and how we can self-police our methods.

I have been at the receiving end of the "you must be a racist since you feel that way" tactic. Sometimes, those that use this tactic will impute your motives and do everything but actually call you racist just so they can claim innocence.

This practice should be stopped IMO.

Anything bother you? Have I used unfair tactics?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I have always been under the impression that debate was a vehicle for agreement - the outcome of honest debate should reveal at least some agreement. Let's face it, pointing out where you disagree is easy.

So, in order to help to those ends, I propose we discuss the tactics used here and how we can self-police our methods.

I have been at the receiving end of the "you must be a racist since you feel that way" tactic. Sometimes, those that use this tactic will impute your motives and do everything but actually call you racist just so they can claim innocence.

This practice should be stopped IMO.

Anything bother you? Have I used unfair tactics? I don't know about these racist claims . . .

But I will make one note about a particularly brilliant strategy that I notice that you seem to always employ:

Namely you seem to enter into a discussion, disregard whatever was said, all of the details and then list a diatribe of almost unrelated information . . .then you end this with a little cute slander to those that you imagine yourself to be 'debating' . . . which, of course, followed your disavowal of any sort of name calling while simultaneously bemoaning the heaps of scorn that you have had foisted on your character . . .

and then, your second post will, invariably, lead in another direction, slightly similar ,but without any real bearing to any of the responses to your original post . . . unless its to comment on some percieved insult from the throngs of 'mush brained Liberals' -which , of course, will not be recognized as itself being an insult . . .
The content of said 'debate' as exemplified by your 'dialectical process' will have been one of post after post of wing-nut blog paste and whining about name calling coupled with lumping everyone from just right-of-Nixon to Mao as 'idiot Liberals' or some such . . .



and ad infinitum, until the thread has absolutely careened into blue-folder death

[where I imagine this one will be good enough to go]

[hardeeharhar]

Debate is not a vehicle for agreement. It never has been. Its purpose is simply to lay out the arguments for a particular case -- the observers make up their own minds.

In forums such as these, we are not hosts to a real debate, the process we see here is far too dynamic. Implicit in this process is an attempt to convince others of their wrongness. This is an impossible task. They must convince themselves of their wrongness.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
I don't know about these racist claims . . .

But I will make one note about a particularly brilliant strategy that I notice that you seem to always employ:

Namely you seem to enter into a discussion, disregard whatever was said, all of the details and then list a diatribe of almost unrelated information . . .then you end this with a little cute slander to those that you imagine yourself to be 'debating' . . . which, of course, followed your disavowal of any sort of name calling while simultaneously bemoaning the heaps of scorn that you have had foisted on your character . . .

and then, your second post will, invariably, lead in another direction, slightly similar ,but without any real bearing to any of the responses to your original post . . . unless its to comment on some percieved insult from the throngs of 'mush brained Liberals' -which , of course, will not be recognized as itself being an insult . . .
The content of said 'debate' as exemplified by your 'dialectical process' will have been one of post after post of wing-nut blog paste and whining about name calling coupled with lumping everyone from just right-of-Nixon to Mao as 'idiot Liberals' or some such . . .



and ad infinitum, until the thread has absolutely careened into blue-folder death

[where I imagine this one will be good enough to go] Your post goes hand in hand with mine if you look at it, and I think you are exaggerating a bit.

The point of this thread is so that we can air some complaint about tactics so we can all get along a bit better. Every thread seems to degenerate into name calling and mud slinging. I mean really, are we just a bunch of spoiled kids that can't control ourselves?

We aren't accomplishing anything if that is going to be the end result every time.

To argue your POV is different than just arguing for argument's sake or even take no prisoners kind of arguing that happens here a lot of the time.

But what do you suggest as a solution?

[dmz]

I have piece of Duct Tape that I keep for threads where....mnpppfff.........mphfttttt.........mmmpf. .....mmmmmpf.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Anything bother you? Have I used unfair tactics?
You mean in the past 24 hours? How about the post that groverat had to delete where you called addabox a pig and said that debating him was worse than bathing a pig?

Naples, it's completely pathetic that you have the nerve to complain and act like a victim. It's actually quite frightening.

[dmz]

It think you meant to say "debathing" giant.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
You mean in the past 24 hours? How about the post that groverat had to delete where you called addabox a pig and said that debating him was worse than bathing a pig?

Naples, it's completely pathetic that you have the nerve to complain and act like a victim. It's actually quite frightening. So you have pointed out what I did wrong. Good job. Give yourself a high-five.

Now that you have that off your chest, Is there ANYTHING constructive you can add rather than displaying your favorite tactic?

I'm an open book, give me some advice that can make me a better forum dweller or whatever. My PO frustration meter is in the red, so I am trying be open to the fact that maybe I am causing my own frustration. Your last comment wasn't helpful and just looked to the past. I am trying to look forward. Bigger and better.

[dmz]

Musings from the resident fundie.

Seriously, the major problem is that we tend to treat each other as objects, not people. When you depersonalize the other person, it (besides being wrong) breeds A LOT of bitterness. Bitterness breeds irritation, so you get a downward spiral of 'violence'. I think most of the time 'turning the other cheek' can break this chain. Also PMing the 'other guy' helps to keep things personal, and helps keep everyone civil.

The other thing to realize, is that we have ALL got blind spots and 'bitch buttons' so bearing each other's burdens there isn't such a bad idea either.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So you have pointed out what I did wrong. Good job. Give yourself a high-five.

Now that you have that off your chest, Is there ANYTHING constructive you can add rather than displaying your favorite tactic?

I'm an open book, give me some advice that can make me a better forum dweller or whatever. My PO frustration meter is in the red, so I am trying be open to the fact that maybe I am causing my own frustration. Your last comment wasn't helpful and just looked to the past. I am trying to look forward. Bigger and better.

Imo, the problem of debased debate stems from people not wishing to look at facts, or suggested facts, if they conflict with political stances they identify with too strongly and wish to protect.

if you are one of these people then all the 'rules' in the word won't help. It's basically a question of open-mindness to new and possibly disturbing ideas. It doesn't even mean they have to be accepted - just considered. But some people find this disturbing.

The main question for me is why people who are potentially offended by data that conflicts with their world view then venture into the very places where it is guaranteed their position will be vehemently challenged. I can't understand it.

Any ideas anyone ?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX


I'm an open book, give me some advice that can make me a better forum dweller or whatever. My PO frustration meter is in the red, so I am trying be open to the fact that maybe I am causing my own frustration. Your last comment wasn't helpful and just looked to the past. I am trying to look forward. Bigger and better.

Having integrity is the way to go. This could mean you have to detach from some "teams" in your life which you play "cheerleader". What I mean here is that when you lend support to a "team" be careful that you not subvert integrity in each case where you give "favor" or "suppport" to your "team" just because they are "the team you support".

Forget ego and pride. These things only make an ass of people.

Just be respectful of others. You do not have to agree with everyone but have respect towards others.

Fellowship

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I'm an open book, give me some advice that can make me a better forum dweller or whatever.
Stop posting.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
My PO frustration meter is in the red

Giant is right, quit posting.

you ask for examples....they give you examples......you reply with "hey, let's not dwell on the past, let's look to the future..."
which pretty much proves Anders point in his post.

quit posting or get thicker skin.

[dmz]

I'm listening to this at the moment:

--------------------------------------
III. I Get Up, I Get Down
Anderson/Howe

In her white lace
You can clearly see the lady sadly looking.
Saying that she'd take the blame
For the crucifixion of her own domain.

I get up, I get down,
I get up, I get down.
Two million people barely satisfy.
Two hundred women watch one woman cry, too late.
The eyes of honesty can achieve.
How many millions do we deceive each day?

[Thru the duty she would coil their said
amusement of her story asking only interest
could be laid upon the children of her domain]

I get up, I get down.
I get up, I get down.

In charge of who is there in charge of me.
Do I look on blindly and say I see the way?
The truth is written all along the page.
How old will I be before I come of age for you?
I get up, I get down.
I get up, I get down.
I get up, I get down.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Imo, the problem of debased debate stems from people not wishing to look at facts, or suggested facts, if they conflict with political stances they identify with too strongly and wish to protect.

if you are one of these people then all the 'rules' in the word won't help. It's basically a question of open-mindness to new and possibly disturbing ideas. It doesn't even mean they have to be accepted - just considered. But some people find this disturbing.

The main question for me is why people who are potentially offended by data that conflicts with their world view then venture into the very places where it is guaranteed their position will be vehemently challenged. I can't understand it.

Any ideas anyone ? I know you are referring to your perception of my political leanings. Let me set you straight, and not in some smart-ass way, just person to person, no animosity or offense intended.

I am a traditionalist, i suppose for the most part, but I am open to all kinds of new ideas. I think that places like this are a great melting pot of ideas. There are moment of genius here.

But like most things that could be great, seldom do they become great. And the thing that keeps meaningful debate from happening is the eagerness to forward a political agenda. PO should be renamed to "Bush Sucks", because that is the line of distinction in just about every thread here. You either think that is true or you are dubbed a "Bush boot-licker" or some other creative name that means the same.

It's no longer a Democrat vs. Republican divide. It's a Pro-Bush vs. Anti-Bush divide. It just so happens that the vast majority of Anti-Bush people are Democrats. It also just so happens that the vast majority of posters here in PO are Democrat or left leaning and also Anti-Bush.

If I had to categorize myself according to that paradigm, I AM pro-bush. Not because I think he is God incarnate, but the sensible traditionalist in me says, "Show our president the respect that ANY president deserves and give him the benefit of the doubt as you would ask others to do for you." Yet I take issue with this president on a wide array of policies. At the same time I agree with people that would be considered his opponents.

I do not align myself with any political party, yet every time I post (nearly, I am exaggerating of course) some one accuses me of be a right wing fundamentalist and therefor free of the ability to think for myself or to even form independent thoughts - a "Bushie" a "NeoCon" a "Fundie" a "BushBorg" (I just made that up, it sings). Those people may exist, but I don't know one - not one. And just so that this is not about just me, the latter happens with anyone that is not Anti-Bush.

It's not that I don't want to see corruption if it exists in the government or that Bush is a "liar". It's that I like to see "intellectual honesty" and "truth" in the discussions that surround such accusations. That is what chaps my hide and compels me to post.

And perhaps there lies the problem, I think that we should be filtering our collective political discussion through a right and wrong archetype. But instead almost everything here in PO is filtered through the new Bush paradigm - even right and wrong at times.

As far as needing rules, I agree 100% with you. I am not really proposing rules be drafted, no I was thinking along the lines of a gentleman's agreement type of thing. Anyway, I also find that those that preach open mindedness are often not practicing what they preach. But I do appreciate the concern.

So where does that leave us? Not sure. But your post did demonstrate the tactic of imputing someone's open mindedness if they don't agree with you. And when I say open-mindedness, you can insert any quality there it works the same. It is a much used tactic here also. You were very diplomatic about it though.

And for the record, I ventured here because I bought a Mac and needed some help one day - not because I was looking for a political fight with someone.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I'm listening to this at the moment:

--------------------------------------
III. I Get Up, I Get Down
Anderson/Howe

In her white lace
You can clearly see the lady sadly looking.
Saying that she'd take the blame
For the crucifixion of her own domain.

I get up, I get down,
I get up, I get down.
Two million people barely satisfy.
Two hundred women watch one woman cry, too late.
The eyes of honesty can achieve.
How many millions do we deceive each day?

[Thru the duty she would coil their said
amusement of her story asking only interest
could be laid upon the children of her domain]

I get up, I get down.
I get up, I get down.

In charge of who is there in charge of me.
Do I look on blindly and say I see the way?
The truth is written all along the page.
How old will I be before I come of age for you?
I get up, I get down.
I get up, I get down.
I get up, I get down.

:err:

Ok, I would usually assume this was meant for the 'what you're listening to thread' but would anyone admit it ?

[groverat]

NaplesX:

I am glad that you thought starting a thread about your anger was a good idea. It makes me happy because I realize that you need a week off to think about whether or not threads like these are truly a good idea. And hopefully, after a week off, you will learn to calm down and not post while angry and also that not everyone in the world is going to agree with you, like you or even respect you.

Your childish flame baiting and personal attacks will hopefully work their way out of your system. See you next Wednesday.*

love,
groverat

* - That is, if I remember to let you back in.