ParanetOnline
The Site => Site Suggestions & Support => Topic started by: iago on February 07, 2007, 07:12:33 AM
-
Spawning off from http://www.jim-butcher.com/bb/index.php/topic,1825.30.html ...
However, I'm not looking to debate. I just want discussion. I want to talk about what's possible rather than argue about why who has to be wrong and what theory isn't possible. I came here to talk about the dresdenverse and interesting topics along the lines introduced by the books. I don't want to drive each subject into the ground. That tends to make people go away.
So, I like this idea of providing a means for segregating "casual discussion" from "focused debate"... but in order to do that, I need to establish a policy. In particular, that policy needs to clearly and unambiguously delineate what constitutes "focused debate" vs. what constitutes "casual discussion". And I need to do it in such a way that it doesn't require doubling the number of boards -- so mainly I'm thinking this would, at most, establish one new board per category.
So I put the question to y'all. How do we distinguish the two, and how do we implement something like this in a way least destructive to the existing board dynamic?
-
In a discussion, you use the other person's ideas to augment your own.
In a debate, you try to prove the other person wrong.
-
Honestly, I'm not sure you can. To me, at least, discussion and debate are the same thing.
I"ve encountered this a lot on here. My style may be overly confrontational, I don't know. I certainly don't try to be, but one of the criticism I find when I disagree with people is they say 'it's all speculation, it might be true, your stifling speculation'.
It seems to me that the demarkation from discussion to debate seems to be when someone disagree's.
How would we enforce that?
I was thinking maybe we should change it from discussion to speculation?
If you are speculating, people don't disagree so much as refine your idea, and when you are debating, someone takes up a contrary position and uses book quotes.
I hope this helps.
-
I don't know... the way people seem to treat the two, discussion is when you agree with me, but debate is when you disagree. I'm not sure that there's much difference. And I don't think that there's an intended difference when the poster starts the thread. I understand the intent of creating another board, but I'm not sure it would help, because threads start one way and move into "debate" as posts pile up.
Guess that isn't much help. Sorry, Iago.
-
Here's how I view it:
In a discussion, the intent isn't to persuade: it's to collaboratively build. The basic assumption is that everyone's viewpoint is basically valid and interesting and deserves expansion.
In a debate, the intent is to persuade the audience, through rhetoric, argumentation, or what-have-you, to a specific point of view. Usually, multiple points of view are presented by different authors, all of whom are trying either to prove their own point, disprove the other points, or both.
Maybe examples are better.
Discussion:
bobtheskull: I think X.
lightsabre: I think Y.
bobtheskull: That's interesting: that completely changes the nature of Q, though!
lightsabre: Hnh, you're right. But if Q is that way, then that means that X and Y are both really close together.
someone else: I have this theory about N: how does that fit into X, Y and Q?
bobtheskull: Weeeeeell, Y supports it, but not X, unless you also take Q into account.
lightsabre: Hold on, X also supports it even without Q, because check out this neat thing!
bobtheskull: Holy cow, I never even saw that. Did you know about R?
someone else: Wait, Q and R have to do with X? HOLY CRAP, JIM'S A GENIUS.
bobtheskull: Amen.
lightsabre: Amen.
everyone else: Amen. Hummus?
bobtheskull: Dude, awesome hummus.
lightsabre: TOTALLY awesome hummus.
someone else: Wow, what's hummus?
bobtheskull: Chickpeas.
lightsabre: Chickpeas AND olive oil.
someone else: Chickpeas, olive oil, and Angelina Jolie.
everyone else: *drool*
Debate:
bobtheskull: I think X.
lightsabre: I think Y.
bobtheskull: X is clearly right, because of A, B, C and N.
lightsabre: Y is clearly right, because of Q, R, S and T. Besides which, X is invalid on its face: C isn't canon!
bobtheskull: Anyone who's read the books knows that C is canon. X is totally valid, because of A, B and N in addition to C. Furthermore, Y is wrong because of...
someone else: I totally disagree with both of you. P is the only right answer: X is invalid because of C, Y is invalid because of S, and P incorporates the best parts of A, B, N, Q, R /and/ T!
bobtheskull: Okay, point, but, dude, B.
lightsabre: Forget B, check out Q! I still believe fervently that Y is the way to go.
bobtheskull: I disagree, but I see your point.
someone else: I disagree with bobtheskull, and kind of agree with lightsabre, but I still think my P is the best idea.
someone else: Heh, P. Geddit? Pee? HAHA. Er. Anyway, she has a point. All in favor of P?
someone else: I like P, too. I can't believe I wrote that.
someone else: No way, bob's totally sold me on X.
someone else: Eenh, I'm with lightsabre on Y.
someone else: Man, I'm hungry. I could totally go for some hummus.
bobtheskull: I'm in favor of hummus. Well argued, lightsabre.
lightsabre: I third hummus. Back at you, bob.
someone else: Awesome, hummus! Come on, GROUP HUG!
everyone else: *hug* *hummus*
Just Plain Dumb:
bobtheskull: I think X.
lightsabre: I think Y.
bobtheskull: You're an idiot.
lightsabre: Am not. YOU'RE an idiot.
bobtheskull: You're /always/ an idiot! Look at (unrelated thread)! You always do X!
lightsabre: I am not. I NEVER do X! Except that one time, but that was because YOU did X, I was just defending myself!
bobtheskull:OH YEAH, WELL I CAN TALK LOUDER.
lightsabre: YEAH, WELL, I CAN BE MORE VICTIMIZED.
someone else: You know, maybe this argument isn't a good idea.
bobtheskull: SHUT UP I'M REAMING THE IDIOT.
lightsabre: YEAH WELL I'M REAMING UR MOM.
someone else: JESUS, SHUT UP.
bobtheskull: NO, YOU SHUT UP.
lightsabre: NO, YOU.
everyone else: (stabbing selves in eye with fork)
iago, mickeyfinn, ashton: *BANHAMMER*
-
By definition a debate is a discussion between people with apposing points of view.
A discussion is “Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation,” where the topic and/or premise is generally agreed.
You cannot have a discussion between people with apposing points of view.
Problem: with so many people coming at a topic with varying amounts of information, egos, and beliefs a “discussion” will more often turn to debate.
The only way to avoid (or at least lessen it) would be to make a section strictly for “discussion” wherein the topic and the opening post are accepted and agreed upon by all following posters and a question is posed for discussion based on that topic and opening post. (If you don’t agree with the premise you don’t post.)
It’ll probably still degenerate into name calling and flaming but...what’ya gonna do?
:-\
-
I tip my hat to you, Ashton! And now I'm really craving hummus...
-
It sounds to me like discussion takes an idea and elaborates on it, essentially as a collaborative exercise.
So by contrast a debate takes an idea, determines two or more opposing viewpoints, and discusses the merits of each of those viewpoints in conflict with one another.
Yes?
-
Yeah, most of the TV section appears to be debate, and the Timelines discussions are generally discussion. Other than that, it's a mix of the both.
-
In my experience from 6 loooong years of running the same web forum a debate is where an idea or two are put under the spotlight for formal analysis whereas a discussion is an exchange of ideas with no formal cessation. Good ideas survive to be adapted as you learn more about your subject matter.
So in that regard it comes down to language and conduct of individuals. How you begin a discussion will largely decide how others respond. Control of debates & discussions is essential. That's where the forum staff come in. User reputation is another problem. If a regular user starts threads with intent to moan; they fall, sometimes subconsciously onto the watchlist of other members. You think - 'Oh it's so-in-so again... What now?' On the opposite end you have the user who will often defend the virtues of the 'product', so what occurs is a battle of extreme opposites. This can in turn dictate the way in which a forum is managed. Achieving a balance is a huge endeavor and you may have to assume it cannot be achieved, though I would say in regards to this site the influx of new members having a go at the TV adaptation are the short-sharp-shock types who fizzle out as time passes. Some remain and become calmer and more constructive, fitting in with the forum ethos.
I had a bigger entry detailing how I handled it on my web forum as we had this exact same problem a while back. It resulted in a lot of changes and enforcing rules to ensure debate didn't turn into a heavyweight ego clash by page 2. Of course different people have different ways of solving problems.
-
I gotta say, Ashton nails the difference between discussion and debate.
However, I don't really like how he used my nick here in the examples. I've never called anyone names here. I called one person a hypocrite but it's hardly the same as calling someone stupid.
Ashton, did you really view my posts like that or were you simply writing an example?
-
Ashton, did you really view my posts like that or were you simply writing an example?
I would consider the nicknames used in the example to be picked because they're from the thread that kicked this one off, not because they particularly adhered to any one role. It may as well be Dick and Jane.
-
Meanwhile back to the difference between discussion and debate. When I want to know the meaning of a word I consult the Oxford English dictionary. Of course this only gives the English English meanings not the US English ones. (You know what I mean I'm sure).
Denate =
noun 1 a formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented. 2 an argument.
Discussion=
• noun 1 the action or process of discussing something. 2 a conversation or debate about a topic. 3 a detailed treatment of a topic in speech or writing.
I've underlined the words I think relevant. Not a lot of difference in meaning as far as I can see. Perhaps the difference is in common usage? Possibly Debate is a more formal term?
But I'm no English major, I stopped short at A level English literature.
-
Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?
I think most threads have a mixture of discussion/debate in them, and that works.
Everyone seems to have a different definition, and I worry that if we set a 'discussion corner', people will start reporting everything that doesn't seem to agree with their theory.
Case in point, I thought bobtheskull was happy to debate the topic with me, till he suddenly said he wasn't.
-
Hm. So, if the definitions of the two terms are ambiguous (as I privately suspected they would be), what's a better way of discussing this? Are we thinking something more like "Admiration vs. Confrontation" or the like?
-
Theory building (no disagreement allowed) vs. (contrary opinions welcome) ?
-
Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?
I think most threads have a mixture of discussion/debate in them, and that works.
Everyone seems to have a different definition, and I worry that if we set a 'discussion corner', people will start reporting everything that doesn't seem to agree with their theory.
Case in point, I thought bobtheskull was happy to debate the topic with me, till he suddenly said he wasn't.
I wasn't. As I said in the thread in question, I was pointing out a possible explaination of how magic would work in terms of summoning circles. You started to debate on your own in a decision to rip apart my ideas without offering your own.
I felt I *had* to respond to your debate thrusts until I just said the heck with it, and it wasn't worth trying anymore.
Regarding the sword, it's a discussion until one person suggests Thomas should get it and why, and someone else starts tearing down their argument in order to prove why not.
Theory building (no disagreement allowed) vs. (contrary opinions welcome) ?
Contrary opinions are welcome, but how one states it is important.
Stating "you're wrong. It can't be the way you describe it because..." is *generally* debate.
Obviously there might be exceptions, for example in a long discussion one might point out a fact that the other missed or forgot. (for example, in another thread here, a question arose as to wards on the doors to Harry's office in the books vs show. There was discussion until someone was able to get the info specifically from the books. I said something about how I seemed to remember there were, until someone else pointed out politely that it was static electricity that Harry had felt.)
Stating "I see what you mean. I disagree though. My own opinion on how this fictional magic would work is like this though." is discussion.
One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument. It comes across offensively.
-
I gotta say, Ashton nails the difference between discussion and debate.
However, I don't really like how he used my nick here in the examples. I've never called anyone names here. I called one person a hypocrite but it's hardly the same as calling someone stupid.
Ashton, did you really view my posts like that or were you simply writing an example?
Absolutely not. Nothing in my post should be construed as reflective of anyone's actual position. I was just going with the names from the thread. I love you all equally.
Hummus?
-
Debate isn't necessarily angry or unfriendly, bobtheskull. I'm not sure I agree with that method of distinction.
-
I gotta say, Ashton nails the difference between discussion and debate.
However, I don't really like how he used my nick here in the examples. I've never called anyone names here. I called one person a hypocrite but it's hardly the same as calling someone stupid.
Ashton, did you really view my posts like that or were you simply writing an example?
Absolutely not. Nothing in my post should be construed as reflective of anyone's actual position. I was just going with the names from the thread. I love you all equally.
Hummus?
Thanks, but no Hummus until I get to know you better. I'm not that kind of guy. (eep, now I wonder if there aren't unfortunate connotations to my chosen username.)
Thanks for clearing that up though. I didn't *think* I was posting in the manner of your example, but one can never be sure.
-
Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?
I think most threads have a mixture of discussion/debate in them, and that works.
Everyone seems to have a different definition, and I worry that if we set a 'discussion corner', people will start reporting everything that doesn't seem to agree with their theory.
Case in point, I thought bobtheskull was happy to debate the topic with me, till he suddenly said he wasn't.
I wasn't. As I said in the thread in question, I was pointing out a possible explaination of how magic would work in terms of summoning circles. You started to debate on your own in a decision to rip apart my ideas without offering your own.
Ok, two things. One please stop trying to paint me as an ogre who tried to come in and trash your house.
You posted a theory, I pointed out flaws.
And what did you think I was arguing? I was arguing my own views, ie thresholds are natural occurances, as with circles, and have nothing to do with belief.
It's all legit.
I felt I *had* to respond to your debate thrusts until I just said the heck with it, and it wasn't worth trying anymore.
I didn't force you to respond. You could have opted out of the discussion, or chosen not to respond. Please stop trying to make everything my fault.
you took part, you are partially to blame.
Regarding the sword, it's a discussion until one person suggests Thomas should get it and why, and someone else starts tearing down their argument in order to prove why not.
See here it is again. You can say 'tearing down an argument', but can you define it?
Theory building (no disagreement allowed) vs. (contrary opinions welcome) ?
Contrary opinions are welcome, but how one states it is important.
Stating "you're wrong. It can't be the way you describe it because..." is *generally* debate.
Obviously there might be exceptions, for example in a long discussion one might point out a fact that the other missed or forgot. (for example, in another thread here, a question arose as to wards on the doors to Harry's office in the books vs show. There was discussion until someone was able to get the info specifically from the books. I said something about how I seemed to remember there were, until someone else pointed out politely that it was static electricity that Harry had felt.)
Yup, that was me.
As to the above, I don't see a difference between that and what you wrote below.
Same idea, different wording.
Stating "I see what you mean. I disagree though. My own opinion on how this fictional magic would work is like this though." is discussion.
Ok, so when does it turn into debate?
That's fine for intial statements, but person A will respond with why their theory is right, and person b will attempt to find flaws to disprove it.
Hence, disucssion becomes debate.
However, I see no difference(except wording) to the examples you posted.
One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
[
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument. It comes across offensively.
You keep mentioning this 'end of story' quote I said to you. Once.
And it was, it was a fact, from the book. There could be no argument, cuase there was no grey area. I can accept I might have been a little rude to state it like that, but can we just let it go?
Please?
-
Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?
Debates can occur withing a discussion without detracting from the discussion as a whole. Another qualifier might be that debates continue the opposing viewpoints for some time, whereas a person in a discussion takes the opposing viewpoint and integrates it into his own, allowing some parts to harmonize while others don't.
-
One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
[
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument. It comes across offensively.
You keep mentioning this 'end of story' quote I said to you. Once.
And it was, it was a fact, from the book. There could be no argument, cuase there was no grey area. I can accept I might have been a little rude to state it like that, but can we just let it go?
Please?
I used the phrase here as a specific example. I even said "no offense intended" because I merely wanted to mention the phrase. I wasn't trying to paint you as an ogre for it. And no, you hadn't used it on me in defense of a fact from a book.
There's some real confusion here between discussion and debate, which is why this thread exists.
-
Are we having a debate or a discussion on this thread? I would say both. We are trying to collaboratively define debates and discussions, but we have a number of disagreements and are arguing our various points on the matter. I think the whole thing is based on a false dichotomy. I agree with Lightsabre.
-
One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
[
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument. It comes across offensively.
You keep mentioning this 'end of story' quote I said to you. Once.
And it was, it was a fact, from the book. There could be no argument, cuase there was no grey area. I can accept I might have been a little rude to state it like that, but can we just let it go?
Please?
I used the phrase here as a specific example. I even said "no offense intended" because I merely wanted to mention the phrase. I wasn't trying to paint you as an ogre for it. And no, you hadn't used it on me in defense of a fact from a book.
There's some real confusion here between discussion and debate, which is why this thread exists.
I think this is because discussion and debate are very similar.
Basically, I think the real difference is a debate has structure and rules, but discussion doesn't.
We've all been dicussing, not debating.
Debating has definitions, and timed rebuttals and all that.
Discussions don't.
Otherwise, I struggle to find a definition that isn't 'discussion means you can't disagree'.
Bobtheskull, maybe we are approching this wrong.
How do you characterise discussion???
-
I tip my hat to you, Ashton! And now I'm really craving hummus...
Just so long as it does not become a requirement to drool over combining the concepts of "hummus" and "Angelina Jolie", because I'm very much on the "two great tastes that taste better separately" position there.
In theory. Not having met Ms. Jolie, and meaning her no disrespect either way.
-
Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation. The vast majority of what I've seen since joining in the conversation here as struck me as eminently civilised, and I would worry somewhat that being self-conscious about an additional distinction might make it hard to have conversations flow as naturally and appealingly as they often do.
I wonder whether part of the problem might not be something I've seen recur in other online fora in different places, which is people from different areas or brought up in different cultures within the English-speaking world having distinctly different basic notions of what is and is not civil conversation, or hearing things with subtext differently from what was meant in them - I've personally lived in five different countries for significant lengths of time as an adult, and had a number of such issues come up, for example "If you say so", which seems to read very dismissively some places in NorAm, whereas in my home part of Ireland it's a neutral or mildly complimentary way of acknowledging that somebody probably knows better and you don't have the information to judge.
I have withdrawn from a couple of threads recently where continued argument appeared to be generating more heat than light. As a suggestion for how to counter this, what would people think of the notion that, when a book-related discussion appears to be getting heated, the participants be requested to [ or ideally undertake of their own responsibility ] construct whatever position they are suggesting in a more formal manner, identifying what of their particular argument is actually stated in the text of the books in so many words, and what is a deduction from there and by what logic ? I suggest this because a number of the more heated threads recently appear to hinge on people having different perceptions on what can be regarded as "fact" within the Dresdenverse.
-
Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.
Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't. Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though. The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.
It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there. The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week.
I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.
The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now. Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group. Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.
If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.
I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate. I think there are valid reasons to debate things. I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it. If it were ONLY me, I would. Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.
It's kind of a problem on all boards.
-
Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.
Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't. Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though. The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.
It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there. The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week.
I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.
The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now. Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group. Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.
If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.
I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate. I think there are valid reasons to debate things. I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it. If it were ONLY me, I would. Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.
It's kind of a problem on all boards.
bobtheskull.
It's obvious you think very little of debating. I say this because your definition portrays a selfish person, here to cause trouble or swing their intellect around.
Using our little case as an example, I was discussing, not debating, by your logic.
I was interested in your idea, I saw several flaws in it, and I attempted to discuss with you, those flaws.
You, however, using your definition, were debating.
you were agreesively trying to prove your own point, and you certainly weren't interested in others ideas, at least in your dialog with me.
Moreover, in our little conversation, I was interested in the ideas of the group, you were hardly the first person I responded to on the thread.
Do you see what I mean about it being murky?
My worry is that we end up with 100 different people with 100 different definitions of 'discussion' all flaming, fighting and complaining to the mods that there is debate on a dicussion thread and vice versa.
When we post, when we put an idea up for discussion, we take the 'risk' of debate, of having to shore up, or admit to weaknesses in our ideas/theories.
It's a part of being on a board like this.
-
Oy. It's good I haven't been cruising the boards as much lately, if things are getting vicious enough to warrant this kind of thread ;)
How about this for a policy?
If things are getting heated, the mods tell the folks who are fighting to back away and cool off so that they can debate later, drop it, or take it into PMs. Maybe the mods could take a crack at mediation (like having someone summarize the other person's arguments) if they think it's necessary. Then, if the parties won't knock it off and play nice, the mods get to use their wonderful mod tools to slap the fighters or close the topic. I would recommend getting more volunteer mods if this kind of thing would be too much for the current staff, but other than the nerd!fury in TV land, I don't think there's been too much beyond the normal debate/discussion posturing.
I think most of us here are polite enough to know when enough is enough and follow something like that. But making a whole new class of thread or board seems like an extreme measure for what should be a matter of common sense and decency.
The nerd fury will die down eventually :P
Remember, just be polite and actually try to understand (read: open yourself up to the possibility of being convinced) where the other guy is coming from.
-
I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
No one can make you "debate" (by your definition, certainly not mine) anything. It is your choice to make if you allow yourself to be engaged in debate.
-
Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.
Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't. Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though. The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.
It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there. The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week.
I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.
The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now. Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group. Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.
If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.
I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate. I think there are valid reasons to debate things. I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it. If it were ONLY me, I would. Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.
It's kind of a problem on all boards.
bobtheskull.
It's obvious you think very little of debating. I say this because your definition portrays a selfish person, here to cause trouble or swing their intellect around.
Using our little case as an example, I was discussing, not debating, by your logic.
I was interested in your idea, I saw several flaws in it, and I attempted to discuss with you, those flaws.
You, however, using your definition, were debating.
you were agreesively trying to prove your own point, and you certainly weren't interested in others ideas, at least in your dialog with me.
Moreover, in our little conversation, I was interested in the ideas of the group, you were hardly the first person I responded to on the thread.
Do you see what I mean about it being murky?
My worry is that we end up with 100 different people with 100 different definitions of 'discussion' all flaming, fighting and complaining to the mods that there is debate on a dicussion thread and vice versa.
When we post, when we put an idea up for discussion, we take the 'risk' of debate, of having to shore up, or admit to weaknesses in our ideas/theories.
It's a part of being on a board like this.
First off, I never "complained" to a mod about you or anyone else. Our little exchange was noticed by Iago, probably all on his own, and he came in to ask us to play nice.
When it gets to the level of fighting and flaming, it's obviously not from discussions. When someone feels the urge to use "idiot" in response to a post, it's not a discussion.
Second, I quit posting in that thread when it was obvious you wanted to debate. You even indicated you were interested in debating. You used words such as "Irrelevant" and tried to put words in my mouth:
"Let's suppose several 'Gods' got together and agreed how magic would work, which is what you are talking about here."
You tried to make blanket statements such as "But people don't believe this. " as fact regardless of whether it was true. I'd made a general statement about people in all ages thinking belief affects reality, and you tried to tear it down completely by simply saying "But people don't believe this." without actually understanding it.
You stated
"Because Faith is a magic all of it own, and the cross doesn't symbolise what Harry believes in. the pentacle does.
When Harry uses the pentacle, he is simply employing another sort of magic."
in an attempt to show how my suggestions of belief could affect magic was wrong, without actually ever suggesting an alternate theory.
You could have instead said "I don't agree with your idea and theories on magic. I'll focus on someone ELSE'S theories that I like better." rather than work to tear down my suggestions. There's room for more than one theory in the thread.
You were simply going for points. You weren't interested in discussion. You've made at least one other person on this board wish to never have bothered posting.
-
I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
No one can make you "debate" (by your definition, certainly not mine) anything. It is your choice to make if you allow yourself to be engaged in debate.
No, but when certain users seem to take delight in responding to every post with which they disagree with posts that can be classified as debating, it tends to drive others away.
Yes, I could simply ignore it and not let myself get caught up, but sometimes it sneaks up on people. A certain thread, for example, where one person posted their thoughts on a topic, and a debater jumped in to respond. The OP tried to defend his statements because he just wanted to express himself. He didn't realize that he was getting dragged into a debate.
The same bloody thing happened to me in a topic about how some aspect of magic might work in the dresdenverse. I didn't even see it coming until I was in the middle of it.
I'm not saying debating is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not always welcome or useful, especially in a thread about how someone felt something didn't make sense.
If it was *just me*, I'd say the heck with it. I'm learning to catch the signs of debaters earlier nowadays, but they are often harmful to forums. They scare away newbies. They torment anyone less eloquent than they. And they seem to be more about claiming their ground than in discussing ideas.
Everyone has a bit of debator in them. It's the same part of you that ends up screaming "I AM NOT YELLING!" at your SO proceeded by "AND YOU KIDS GO TO BED!" at the younguns.
-
I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
No one can make you "debate" (by your definition, certainly not mine) anything. It is your choice to make if you allow yourself to be engaged in debate.
No, but when certain users seem to take delight in responding to every post with which they disagree with posts that can be classified as debating, it tends to drive others away.
Yes, I could simply ignore it and not let myself get caught up, but sometimes it sneaks up on people. A certain thread, for example, where one person posted their thoughts on a topic, and a debater jumped in to respond. The OP tried to defend his statements because he just wanted to express himself. He didn't realize that he was getting dragged into a debate.
The same bloody thing happened to me in a topic about how some aspect of magic might work in the dresdenverse. I didn't even see it coming until I was in the middle of it.
I'm not saying debating is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not always welcome or useful, especially in a thread about how someone felt something didn't make sense.
If it was *just me*, I'd say the heck with it. I'm learning to catch the signs of debaters earlier nowadays, but they are often harmful to forums. They scare away newbies. They torment anyone less eloquent than they. And they seem to be more about claiming their ground than in discussing ideas.
Everyone has a bit of debator in them. It's the same part of you that ends up screaming "I AM NOT YELLING!" at your SO proceeded by "AND YOU KIDS GO TO BED!" at the younguns.
bobtheskull.
I am not some bboard predator, lurking to snare unsuspecting 'discussion holders' into debates with my nefarious posting power.
I am simply a Jim fan who loves the books, and loves to explore ideas.
Yes, I used the word debate. But what I was doing was exploring your idea.
THere were several flaws in them, and I pointed them out.
You have grabbed several phrases I used, and tried to make them evidence of me being some big bully.
As others said, you did not get 'tricked' or 'dragged' into a debate. YOu chose to debate me.
YOu also chose to stop.
THis thread is not about us. I used it as an example becuase it was the easiest. I am not rehashing that little debacle with you, because I don't want this thread shut down, or to be banned.
SInce you've started posting on here, you've taken shots at me every chance you get.
I reported the thread to Iago, because your responses kept getting more and more heated, and in your last post, you neglected the topic entirely, to have a shot at me.
I felt moderator influence was needed.
That spawned this thread, where you do it again.
If anyone is sorry they posted, bobtheskull, it's me.
As to your other post above, telling me my own motivations. Mate, you have no idea what I was doing.
I'll tell you one more time. I found your idea intriguing, but I could see holes in it. I didn't really agree with it, so I took up the devils advocate position.
You made your own choices, take ownership of that, dont' try to blame me.
-
Ok, I've read enough of this discussion to have an opinion on it, which I submit herewith. Ahem.
This is an idea without merit.
It's not wise to fraction up your readers because some people get their feelings hurt very easily by written exchanges. We have rules in place to deal with discussions that get heated; the thread gets reported, an admin looks it over, and he makes a judgement call based on what's there about whether or not the board's "play nice" policy is being violated. If it is, then appropriate smacks are handed out.
Bob: In a real debate, no one uses the word "idiot" either. Debates do not equal people flinging invective. It's not about "discussion = gentle, debate = mean". That seems to be your position from what I'm reading, but it's unsupported. Based on what you've said here, what you mean is that you want a thread where you can post opinions and not have people disagree with you unless they're exceedingly polite and gentle about it.
If votes matter on this, I say no. If anyone gets overly nasty in a thread, report them. But trying to handle the previously-stated problem of, "You got your debate in my discussion!" will stifle the open flow of ideas as we, every single time, begin to wrangle over the difference between a discussion and a debate, and not the subject at hand.
Had I seen the thread in question, if someone had called Bob an idiot, I'd have said something in the thread about it and would have hit the "Report" button.
All that's needed to keep disagreements civil is to remember to examine the argument, not the arguer. Point out the flaws in the thinking, not in the thinker. If you really think you can't do it, never use the word "you" in a disagreement post. Stick with, "This idea", or "that theory". That'll keep you on safe ground, if you know you're the kind of person who's eventually gonna get disgusted and say "You're an idiot".
And if someone's arguing against your point, remember that you are not your arguments. Don't take it personally. Maybe if it's your PhD dissertation and someone attacks every point, then you can be insulted. But this is not even a place to debate your intellectual property. It's Jim's books and the show based on them that we're talking about. So why be so invested in your opinion that you take any disagreement as a personal affront?
There. That's my position on this debate.
-
Hummus....the crazy man's queso. I like queso...
Hmmm...is that a debate or a discussion? (Actually, for the record, I think hummus is fine too :D)
I agree with a previous poster that this topic is a concern that the nerdfury over in TV land threads has created. I also agree that the nerdfury will die down eventually.
To me, there is no problem either with debate or discussion, it's all in the tone. And that can be the hardest thing to monitor, because the written word lends itself to be misinterpreted without facial expressions or voice inflections. What one person thinks is a riviting debate on a topic, might be seen as an attack by someone else. This is the trickiest part of internet chatting, trying to create the appropriate tone in your posts to convey what you're trying to say. That's one reason smileys are so important. :D
See, there is a world of difference between:
Man, you're one crazy fool!
and
Man, you're one crazy fool! ;D
So, I guess my advice is to not try and separate discussion and debate (because no one will ever agree on what they mean...which is a debate, right?), but instead, to use more goofy smiley faces. ::)
-
Here's an attempt at some constructive feedback for two of the posters on this thread who are starting to derail this thread from its more generalized topic by making it specifically about them. Since that's what's happening, guess what, you'll get me to get specific.
Lightsabre: You have a tendency to use debate tactics which are unpleasant to the other folks in the conversation with you. Probably the biggest problem I can point at is that you tend to be dismissive. You'll say "You're wrong." or "Irrelevant!" -- and at best, you'll hint at your possessing of secret knowledge that supports such a dismissal, without sharing it, without citing your sources, leaving you in a position where people can either agree with your stance on faith, or disagree but in a fashion that's guaranteed to make emotions darker, angrier, and heightened, both on their side and yours. At my most charitable, I can see this as lazy. At my least charitable, this looks like trolling. When it's kept up as a consistent pattern of behavior, I get less charitable. So keep in mind that this tactic (among several others which I'm not getting into) that you casually and regularly employ is guaranteed to put you on a trajectory to where not only the average reader gets annoyed with you, but the admins such as myself start seeing your chosen methods as poisonous to the community and in violation of the "keep it civil" atmosphere we want to promote around here.
Bobtheskull: You probably started out in the right, or at least relatively blameless, in a lot of the discussions around here, but you're starting to become what you have beheld. You're letting yourself get baited, you're getting pulled into exactly the sort of discussions you say you don't enjoy and are trying to avoid, and when you do, you're starting to be a less than pleasant participant in them. As with Lightsabre I do not mean this to say that you can't disagree with people, but the methods and modes of speech being used are starting to fall outside of the "civil, non-derogatory, non-inflammatory, constructive" envelope. I must encourage you to think twice before you post. I've seen you let Lightsabre get your goat several times, and it's only reflected poorly upon you. And then I see you start taking cheap shots at the writers of the TV show -- to their face. This tells me you're getting stressed out by the boards, and letting that stress color your posts. Not a good idea, friend.
Whether either of you take these observations to heart and start enacting immediate change is entirely on you, but I will say that I've privately been keeping the admins in general from taking this whole thing as cause to start handing out warnings on both sides of the rivalry. That wellspring of charity is starting to run dry.
Both of you are walking a line here. It's the line that divides this board between being a welcoming environment and being a hostile environment.
You can imagine which one I will act to promote, and which one I will kill in its crib if needs be.
-
Bob: In a real debate, no one uses the word "idiot" either. Debates do not equal people flinging invective. It's not about "discussion = gentle, debate = mean". That seems to be your position from what I'm reading, but it's unsupported. Based on what you've said here, what you mean is that you want a thread where you can post opinions and not have people disagree with you unless they're exceedingly polite and gentle about it.
I said "if someone feels the urge to use the word Idiot", not "if someone uses the word".
There's a difference. In a real debate, quite often people want to use disparagement. Usually they try to avoid being the first person to do it though.
Debate is by it's very nature argumentative. Discussion isn't.
-
This is an idea without merit.
You're on to something there. ;)
My main purpose in starting this thread is to see if there *is* merit to be found, vis a vis my "welcoming" vs. "hostile" goals already stated elsewhere in this thread.
If it turns out there isn't, or there isn't enough consensus about how to distinguish the two, it's not something I can move on.
But it certainly needs to be discussed. Or is that debated?
-
Bobtheskull: You probably started out in the right, or at least relatively blameless, in a lot of the discussions around here, but you're starting to become what you have beheld. You're letting yourself get baited, you're getting pulled into exactly the sort of discussions you say you don't enjoy and are trying to avoid, and when you do, you're starting to be a less than pleasant participant in them. As with Lightsabre I do not mean this to say that you can't disagree with people, but the methods and modes of speech being used are starting to fall outside of the "civil, non-derogatory, non-inflammatory, constructive" envelope. I must encourage you to think twice before you post. I've seen you let Lightsabre get your goat several times, and it's only reflected poorly upon you. And then I see you start taking cheap shots at the writers of the TV show -- to their face. This tells me you're getting stressed out by the boards, and letting that stress color your posts. Not a good idea, friend.
Fair enough. I know I can be baited and tricked into debate. Unfortunately, it's one thing to recognize one's weaknesses and another to overcome them.
Regarding the other topic with Mr. Wolfe, you closed the subthread. I feel a bit damned if I do and damned if I don't here. I'm not supposed to talk about it but you can admonish me here for it. You've just stated something about the argument I disagree with but I can't defend myself.
Is that really fair?
-
Is that really fair?
Frankly, it doesn't have to be. :) But I don't think it isn't fair. I do think I said it shouldn't be pursued as a thread-derailing thing out in public, which is why I said any continuation should be done in PM.
-
Lightsabre: You have a tendency to use debate tactics which are unpleasant to the other folks in the conversation with you. Probably the biggest problem I can point at is that you tend to be dismissive. You'll say "You're wrong." or "Irrelevant!" -- and at best, you'll hint at your possessing of secret knowledge that supports such a dismissal, without sharing it, without citing your sources, leaving you in a position where people can either agree with your stance on faith, or disagree but in a fashion that's guaranteed to make emotions darker, angrier, and heightened, both on their side and yours. At my most charitable, I can see this as lazy. At my least charitable, this looks like trolling. When it's kept up as a consistent pattern of behavior, I get less charitable. So keep in mind that this tactic (among several others which I'm not getting into) that you casually and regularly employ is guaranteed to put you on a trajectory to where not only the average reader gets annoyed with you, but the admins such as myself start seeing your chosen methods as poisonous to the community and in violation of the "keep it civil" atmosphere we want to promote around here.
Iago,
Let me just say, I hear you. I've noticed this trend in my self, and I like to think I've already made an effort to overcome it, but I'll be more careful in future.
I'm not here to troll or make trouble, I'm just here to talk about the books.
I can promise you I won't make any more posts on the bobtheskull/containment circle issue.
On this topic, however, I agree with Kail.
-
This is an idea without merit.
You're on to something there. ;)
My main purpose in starting this thread is to see if there *is* merit to be found, vis a vis my "welcoming" vs. "hostile" goals already stated elsewhere in this thread.
If it turns out there isn't, or there isn't enough consensus about how to distinguish the two, it's not something I can move on.
But it certainly needs to be discussed. Or is that debated?
I think the main problem we'd have, as a board, is that everyone would have a different definitions of discussion and debate.
I think we'd end up with, at best, a LOT of similiar threads, one for debating, one for discussion, and at worst, a lot of flaming and complaints to the mods about debaters in hte discussion threads.
-
This is an idea without merit.
You're on to something there. ;)
My main purpose in starting this thread is to see if there *is* merit to be found, vis a vis my "welcoming" vs. "hostile" goals already stated elsewhere in this thread.
If it turns out there isn't, or there isn't enough consensus about how to distinguish the two, it's not something I can move on.
But it certainly needs to be discussed. Or is that debated?
Well as the man said, [1776]"In all my years, I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yes, I'm for debatin' anything. Massachusetts says yea!"
Now give me my rum. [/1776]
-
Now give me my rum. [/1776]
Granted, but the 1776 rum went bad about 150 years ago, so you're left with a dusty crate of bottles of ethanol.
Oh wait, this isn't the "corrupt a wish" thread, is it?
-
Now give me my rum. [/1776]
Granted, but the 1776 rum went bad about 150 years ago, so you're left with a dusty crate of bottles of ethanol.
Oh wait, this isn't the "corrupt a wish" thread, is it?
But you still forgot your wish bobtheskull, which might be because this is the wrong thread, though we could debate/discuss that. ;D
-
Now give me my rum. [/1776]
Granted, but the 1776 rum went bad about 150 years ago, so you're left with a dusty crate of bottles of ethanol.
Oh wait, this isn't the "corrupt a wish" thread, is it?
But you still forgot your wish bobtheskull, which might be because this is the wrong thread, though we could debate/discuss that. ;D
Actually, I specifically *didn't* wish a wish here, because it's not the "corrupt a wish" thread. I think it's just the "corrupt a thread" thread.
Great. Now I'm tempted to make a "corrupt the thread thread" thread where every new post has to corrupt the previous post into a new topic. Thanks a lot! /sarcasm ;)
btw, thread thread threaditythreadthread.
-
As I see it, the difference between "discussion" and "debate" is the same as the difference between "black" magic" and "white"...ie, it lies in the realm of "motive and intent."
In a discussion, your motive is to share your thoughts, insights, and questions with a like minded audience, and your intent is to learn and gain new insights from other people's perspectives. As online communications go, the process is collaborative.
In a debate, however, your motive is to present your thoughts, insights, and questions to the same audience, but your intent is to convince them that your perspective is the correct one. As online communications go, the process is competitive.
Personally, I love a good academic debate...and I know from experience they can be done effectively on a forum such as this one...as long as the "Rules of Engagement" are called out ahead of time; and all parties agree to abide by them.
Rather like a Wizard's Duel, wot?
Edited: 'Cause I can't spell...
-
As I see it, the difference between "discussion" and "debate" is the same as the difference between "black" magic" and "white"...ie, it lies in the realm of "motive and intent."
In a discussion, your motive is to share your thoughts, insights, and questions with a like minded audience, and your intent is to learn and gain new insights from other people's perspectives. As online communications go, the process is collaborative.
In a debate, however, your motive is to present your thoughts, insights, and questions to the same audience, but your intent is to convince them that your perspective is the correct one. As online communications go, the process is competitive.
Personally, I love a good academic debate...and I know from experience they can be done effectively on a forum such as this one...as long as the "Rules of Engagement" are called out ahead of time; and all parties agree to abide by them.
Rather like a Wizard's Duel, wot?
Edited: 'Cause I can't spell...
But where is the line?
I mean, if someone theorises murph should get hte sword, and someone else disagrees and says Thomas, is that disucssion or debate?
How do we make the call of what is discussion and what is debate?
-
How do you tell the difference between a discussion and a debate...in one word: rebuttal.
In a discussion, when you disagree with someone you will probably tell them them your opinion, perhaps bolster that position with some "evidence" and then given them a chance to reply. In a discussion, your "opponent" (for lack of a better word) then has the option to present his (or her) opinon in the matter..citing such evidence as they wish. After you both have a chance to express your opinion, the discussion phase ends...either with a concensus (or the tacit agreement to "respectfully disagree) on the matter.
In a debate, however, the participants take the "discussion" to the next level, and instead of trying to understand the other person's perspective (and agreeing to disagree), they try to demolish each other's argument by systematically refuting their "evidence" and thereby calling their interpretation into question.
Frankly, that's why most debate and forensics competitions are governed by a fairly strict set of rules. When it's all said and done, a debate *is* a competition, it's easy to get caught up in the "win/lose" trap and start attacking your opponent (instead of his or her argument).
Does that help explain it any?
-
How do you tell the difference between a discussion and a debate...in one word: rebuttal.
In a discussion, when you disagree with someone you will probably tell them them your opinion, perhaps bolster that position with some "evidence" and then given them a chance to reply. In a discussion, your "opponent" (for lack of a better word) then has the option to present his (or her) opinon in the matter..citing such evidence as they wish. After you both have a chance to express your opinion, the discussion phase ends...either with a concensus (or the tacit agreement to "respectfully disagree) on the matter.
In a debate, however, the participants take the "discussion" to the next level, and instead of trying to understand the other person's perspective (and agreeing to disagree), they try to demolish each other's argument by systematically refuting their "evidence" and thereby calling their interpretation into question.
Frankly, that's why most debate and forensics competitions are governed by a fairly strict set of rules. When it's all said and done, a debate *is* a competition, it's easy to get caught up in the "win/lose" trap and start attacking your opponent (instead of his or her argument).
Does that help explain it any?
Yeah, but I guess I still see a discussion as very stilted.
I see X because of Y
I see A because of B
Ok, well nice chat.
whereas debate is
I think X because of Y
what about A because of B
Well C invalidates A
True, what about A2 that fits with C, Also G demolishes Y
Damn, ok well what about Z because of S
and so on.
It seems that disucssion has very little life to it.
-
Point well made...a discussion *can* continue beyond the initial exchange of ideas. The difference between your scenario and mine, however, is that your two hypothetical people are exchanging ideas (i.e. if not this, then what about that)...
...in mine, there's no attempt to exchange ideas. A debate is not an "open-minded" exchange, (or a meeting of the minds), it's a case of "I have my position", and "you have your position"...and never the twain shall meet. In a debate there is no compromise...there is only one winner (and one loser)
And yes, this is a discussion...not a debate. You and I are trying to reach a mutual understanding on the topic (and I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective with me).
-
Point well made...a discussion *can* continue beyond the initial exchange of ideas. The difference between your scenario and mine, however, is that your two hypothetical people are exchanging ideas (i.e. if not this, then what about that)...
...in mine, there's no attempt to exchange ideas. A debate is not an "open-minded" exchange, (or a meeting of the minds), it's a case of "I have my position", and "you have your position"...and never the twain shall meet. In a debate there is no compromise...there is only one winner (and one loser)
And yes, this is a discussion...not a debate. You and I are trying to reach a mutual understanding on the topic (and I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective with me).
I guess for me, I see debate as like a science experiment.
IE Magic in the Dresdenverse only comes from life.
Is the theory.
Someone points out a hole, so you amend your theory, or explain how the hole is filled.
For me, if someone disproves your theory, in a debate, you just admit it, and reformulate it.
I know, it's not the text book definiton of debate, but it's how I approach discussion/debate on BBoards.
I also think it should only ever be the idea under attack, tho, never the poster.
-
Lightsabre: I very much agree with you. I come to a forum to learn, to be disagreed with, and perhaps (when warranted) to be agreed with. For me, the most valuable discussions very much resemble the classic "Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis" progression. I don't mind being wrong (that's the only way I learn).
And it goes without saying...in a discussion (or in a debate), you attack the argument, NEVER the person. As a debate and forensics judge in the past, doing *that* in a debate I judge is a very good way to blitz your score.
-
I just say agree to disagree. (there was more, and it was cleverly snarky, but my mind went blank when i started to type)
-
So, do we have any answers on this?
-
So, do we have any answers on this?
No, answers, I'm afraid. But I will say I think we had a nice exchange of perspectives...
-
I'm gonna hold off on actually implementing anything for this for the time being, I think. That's the official word for the moment. :)
-
So, do we have any answers on this?
No, answers, I'm afraid. But I will say I think we had a nice exchange of perspectives...
I agree. I found your perspective to be very interesting.
I might have to modify my position somewhat to take in some of that.
-
I agree. I found your perspective to be very interesting.
I might have to modify my position somewhat to take in some of that.
And I, in light of your excellent comments. Thanks again!
-
I'm gonna hold off on actually implementing anything for this for the time being, I think. That's the official word for the moment. :)
Just as long as I'm permitted to whack people in the head with a giant debate stick* when I feel they have crossed my imaginary lines, whether or not there are any, while screaming "DEBATER! DEBATER!" and making that face Donald Sutherland makes at the end of The Bodysnatchers, I'm happy.
*not to be confused with the LART, which is patented and primarily for use only on help-desk abusers.
-
I'm gonna hold off on actually implementing anything for this for the time being, I think. That's the official word for the moment. :)
Just as long as I'm permitted to whack people in the head with a giant debate stick* when I feel they have crossed my imaginary lines, whether or not there are any, while screaming "DEBATER! DEBATER!" and making that face Donald Sutherland makes at the end of The Bodysnatchers, I'm happy.
*not to be confused with the LART, which is patented and primarily for use only on help-desk abusers.
I'm confused. Is this a joke?
-
I'm gonna hold off on actually implementing anything for this for the time being, I think. That's the official word for the moment. :)
Just as long as I'm permitted to whack people in the head with a giant debate stick* when I feel they have crossed my imaginary lines, whether or not there are any, while screaming "DEBATER! DEBATER!" and making that face Donald Sutherland makes at the end of The Bodysnatchers, I'm happy.
*not to be confused with the LART, which is patented and primarily for use only on help-desk abusers.
I'm confused. Is this a joke?
DEBATER! DEBATER! *thwack*
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t135/sumptinweerd/donaldsutherland.jpg)
-
It seems as if there are a lot of master debaters on this board... ;)
-
I'm gonna hold off on actually implementing anything for this for the time being, I think. That's the official word for the moment. :)
Just as long as I'm permitted to whack people in the head with a giant debate stick* when I feel they have crossed my imaginary lines, whether or not there are any, while screaming "DEBATER! DEBATER!" and making that face Donald Sutherland makes at the end of The Bodysnatchers, I'm happy.
*not to be confused with the LART, which is patented and primarily for use only on help-desk abusers.
I'm confused. Is this a joke?
DEBATER! DEBATER! *thwack*
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t135/sumptinweerd/donaldsutherland.jpg)
*gets out the idiot stick*
*thwack thwack*
-
It seems as if there are a lot of master debaters on this board... ;)
LOL ;D
-
It seems as if there are a lot of master debaters on this board... ;)
;D LOL...that's the funniest thing I've read all day...Have a cookie!
-
It seems as if there are a lot of master debaters on this board... ;)
*giggle* :D
-
I know, I know, this thread has been dead for several days, nay, weeks.
But I felt I needed to say some stuff.
Basically, most of this is stuff I've learned through classes and during my life. Maybe it will help stop the angry postings.
'I' vs. 'You' language; (aka Inflammatory/Accusatory language)
Sometimes people use accusatory language without meaning to. The psychology class I took referred to it as "I" and "you" language. The statement "You are wrong" is accusatory, and will put the person hearing/reading it on the defensive immediately. However, saying "I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying" is nonconfrontational and nonaccusatory. It takes equal blame for the situation, not blaming the other person. No offense, but bobtheskull I think you may be particularly susceptible to this kind of language, as Iago has stated. And Lightsabre does use a lot of what could be construed as accusatory language, although I'm sure that's not what is meant. My hubby can be quite susceptible to accusatory language, often thinking a perfectly harmless statement is meant as a personal attack. We're working on that. ;)
Concede mistakes
This is a personal problem of mine. When you're proven wrong, stop and say "oh, I was wrong. Thank you for pointing out my error." Lightsabre did this very well a couple of times in the thread that spawned this thread. However, many people don't, and most don't do it enough. The reason this is a personal thing for me is because I was on the "Lazy writers/FBI" thread, and I proved that an unequivocal statement made by a poster was 100% wrong, and even looked up the FBI website and cited it as my source. I spent a good twenty minutes or more to make my point. Did the angry poster acknowledge my post? Admit they were wrong? No, they just attacked the next person's post that didn't have a source cited. That's when I realized that this person is not here to be convinced, this person is here because they wish to moan, groan and complain. I was going to post a little joke about an episode of Monk that I saw, where the FBI had technology ooozing out their pores and had a god-complex like no other, but figured it would be a waste. The fact that the FBI in both Monk and Hair of the Dog were devices used by the writers to illustrate corrupt law (hair of the dog) or advancing technology (Monk) meant nothing to this person.
Sheesh, now I'm all off topic! Sorry! :P
The biggest difference, to me, between discussion and debate is a debate is timed and structured. I know a guy who won scholarships because of his excellent debate skills, and I think he's so good at it because he doesn't take it personally! No matter what is flung at him, he doesn't get angry with the person on the other end. I don't know how he does it! ;) But most of us are not immune when we think our views and our beliefs are under attack, and we react with emotion. And that's when we lose, and while there really isn't a winner in such an instance, the other person is not affected at all.
Take a step back, as Iago said, is a great idea. Make sure the person means what you think they mean, and maybe we won't be subjected to such long, angry postings!
Have a wonderful day.
;D
PS yes, my friend is a master debater! Nyah! 8)
PPS Bobtheskull, what the heck is a LART?!? ???
-
PPS Bobtheskull, what the heck is a LART?!? ???
I'm going to break the unwritten help desk code and answer that. A LART is a Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool. Luser as in user with an L in front of it.
I have a LART of my own that also serves as a Cluebat - it beats clues into those who have none.
(http://home.austin.rr.com/bugdog/cluebatf.jpg)
And just to prove it's mine, here's the back of it...
(http://home.austin.rr.com/bugdog/cluebatb.jpg)
-
LOL! That's great, thanks!
-
I'll preface my post by saying that I haven't read through the entirety of this thread. My attention span started to wander.
I'd like to point out that discussion and debate often go hand in hand for me. I can start out by refuting an idea, but sometimes the debate can bring me over to the other side at which point it becomes and discussion, and the process can go both ways. Especially when debating issues about the book sometimes there is no "right" answer, but the airing of several different points of view or ideas can bring a better understanding to the source material. If a discussion is becoming a debate and one person dosn't want to participate they don't have to. If someone gets sucked into debating an issue, it's really their own fault, no one is forcing them to argue the point. Of course I have a group of friends that is extremely argumentative and often will argue just for the sake of arguing a point.
-
I know this thread's been dead a while, but I just wanted to say that I think there are too many people online (I'm saying In General, not on this board) who equate "Debate" with "Argument".
IMO:
- Discussion is sharing ideas (opinions) with no agenda, no hurt feelings, and no necessity for Proof.
- Debate is sharing ideas with the intention of "winning". Done correctly, this involves supporting one's statements with cited links, quotes, or other helpful backup/Proof. And it is civilized, no hurt feelings. The participants can agree to disagree, but the goal of Debate is "usually" to convince people that one's opinion is valid, based on fact, etc.
- Argument is what happens when we get into "I'm right, and you're an idiot." Which results in hurt feelings. And it doesn't usually involve one properly backing up one's statements.
Just my spare change.
-
In a debate, you do not need to believe in what you are saying, you simply take a point of view and do your darnedest to bring everyone over to the side/opinion you have chosen to promulgate.
In a discussion, you voice your opinions, and you listen to the opinions of others. There does not need to be defense or attack in discussion as there is in a debate.
In a debate, one does not have to honor or respect the opposing position, or the proponent of that postion/opinion.
In discussion, everyone must be considered equal, and the validation of ideas is not so stringient. There is no proof required in discussion, "that's my opinion" is sufficient justification for saying something.
You can, on a debate board set out rules:
All facts must be documented.
No obscene language.
The opinions stated do not have to be your actual opinions.
You may not say anything personal about the others engaged in the debate.
The debate must stay on topic.
In a discussion, people can stray. Discussions are organic. They evolve. In a discussion it is impolite to make personal comments, but there is no preclusion to the odd: "Boy you're dumb."
How can you enforce a debate? Simple, the moderator allows for three warnings of infraction of whatever rules are set out, and on the third infraction the person in violation is erased. I can think of no more humiliating a fate on a discussion board than to have your name up there with a big blank space, or where the moderator wrote: Violator.
(Of course if the person redresses error and infractions they would get set back to zero.)
Debates could even have points or allow other users to vote on who wins.
In a Conversation, usually everyone wins. We all have a nice time, a few laughs and go away satisfied.
Anyway, that is my opinion. Thank you for asking.