# What is "debate"?  An FYI



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.

1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.  Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.

a.  Burden - YOU make a claim, YOU support that claim.
b.  Avoid asking for proofs of negatives, they are rarely possible.
c.  Support, support, support.
d.  Rhetoric of the facts should be your dominant rhetorical style.
e.  Avoid hypocrisy, be consistent.

2.  Questions and/or challenges need to be straightforward, not involving any insults or attacks.  The act of questioning is not to be taken as an attack - it is simple questioning.

3.  DEBATE can involve opinions, however, opinions hold much more weight if they are explained by describing a logical (if possible) or rational thought process that led you to form your particular opinion.  And, you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.

4.  Read the posts carefully - listen carefully.  Knowing what the opposition is saying is critical in formulating rebuttals and refutations, if any exist.

5.  Be accurate and stay on topic and relevant.  Ensure that your support is relevant AND accurate to your claims.

6.  Sources can and should be challenged, but only on substance, not because you believe the source is a bunch of poopy-heads, for example.

7.  Rebuttals in DEBATE can involve affirmative arguments and refutation of the logic of the person (logical fallacies, unfounded premisses, etc.).  Both are valid rebuttals, however the affirmative argument is often the stronger rebuttal.	


Just a start.  Please add to it, if anyone would like to, that would be great.  The more folks know about debate, maybe there might be a debate spotting at USMB.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

F that!  Too much work!

: Dashes to the flame zone :

Hehe.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.
> 
> 1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.  Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.
> 
> ...



Recommended for stickying. I'm going to need to read this more than once.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.

DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.


----------



## Wiseacre (Jul 30, 2012)

IMHO, it comes down to keeping an open mind not only on what someone else posts, but what you posted also.   I am frequently wrong, and not ashamed to admit it.   

Other thing is, if someone posts something you disagree with, you have every right to make an opposing case.   But you shouldn't be trying to denigrate or marginalize what someone else has written;   most of the time there is a kernal of truth in it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jul 30, 2012)

**Admin edit: warning sent**


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

This makes me happy, as it was an honest and forthright response to an honest and forthright request (in another thread).


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> IMHO, it comes down to keeping an open mind not only on what someone else posts, but what you posted also.   I am frequently wrong, and not ashamed to admit it.
> 
> Other thing is, if someone posts something you disagree with, you have every right to make an opposing case.   But you shouldn't be trying to denigrate or marginalize what someone else has written;   most of the time there is a kernal of truth in it.



Exactly.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is. I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles. I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.
> ...


 
Yes.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 30, 2012)

Can I just add.... your 'source' should be an academically sound one. Backing up your comments with links to notoriously biased sources makes the poster look less than a rational debater.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 30, 2012)

I would really like to see threads started require a source/link. This will cut down on "I heard/think" threads that leave nothing up for debate but attacking each other. 

1: Link/source

2: The OP's thoughts/opinion

Trust me as this works wonders.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

The Basic Skills of Debating


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

A message board debate, however, that is conducted as strictly formal debate, is about as interesting as watching paint dry.  As well as about that much fun.  Formal debate is far to pedantic and tedious to work well in this environment.

But all the points related to civil discussion, challenge, and rebuttal as Si Modo outlined are important and pertinent.

And unless the OP is a hypothetical, some kind of backup for the hypothesis or thesis is in good form.

It is also good form to not put a thesis out there that you are not willing to defend.

It is also important to understand that challenging your concept or opinion is NOT a personal insult or affront or attack.

Calling you crazy or referring to you as an idiot or worse IS a personal attack.
But saying that a stated concept is really looney tunes and here's why. . . is NOT a personal attack.

And the ability to admit when your opponent's information or argument is better than your own or calling it a draw with an agreement to disagree lets us put our big boy and girl pants on.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> A message board debate, however, that is conducted as strictly formal debate, is about as interesting as watching paint dry.  As well as about that much fun.  Formal debate is far to pedantic and tedious to work well in this environment.
> 
> But all the points related to civil discussion, challenge, and rebuttal as Si Modo outlined are important and pertinent.
> 
> ...


Yes, a formal debate would be absolutely boring.  But, an actual debate without the formal rules would be refreshing to see, here.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

Sadly, it's not going to happen. Multiple threads, and it's the same old same old, sans the name calling. People making outrageous claims (see the Romney thread) and providing absolutely NOTHING to support their ridiculous comments...and pretending that they are "debating".


----------



## PredFan (Jul 31, 2012)

I came from a forum where there are strict rules of behavior, even stricter than the rules being applied in this section. The rules applied to every section of the board.

The rationale was that it promoted civil debate.

The problem is that It didn't really accomplish much. Yes the debates were civil but no one's minds ever changed and no answers to problems were ever found.

Not that personal insults or unsourced info is going to do it either, but the difference is one way can be  exciting and fun, the other tends to be boring.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

It just blows my mind that people can so delude themselves when all the information is there, and they are provided the tools, and repeatedly prompted...*Edited. Not Allowed Here.* SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. It's not a complicated idea. If you're going to say something, then just provide the evidence that it is so. Don't say "Romney was crooked" (nobody said that) and then not say exactly how, provide the example, and link the evidence. This is BASIC stuff that I learned in high school composition class. As a FRESHMAN. And truthfully, we were expected to construct intelligent arguments well before that. I gave my first speech as a 5th grader, using quotes, stats, and a respectable collection of references.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste.  Now THAT is boring beyond belief.  I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support.  Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me.  If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source.  If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

No, you make your argument, and then support it with evidence, and then clearly point out how it supports your argument.

It doesn't matter. It's never going to get to that point.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

Well we can amicably agree to disagree.   Again, speaking as an old debate coach and judge, and having attempted formal debate on message boards in the past, this medium is simply not conducive to formal debate EXCEPT in a chat format where participants can stick around and see it through from beginning to end and nobody else participates.

So for lack of a better description, I call message board debate a structured 'conversation'.   It is still debate with both sides giving their best argument for a concept and supporting it as necessary, but can be done in a much more informal manner and not require every member posting to know and follow the very strict rules of formal debate.

Example:
Me:      While single parents can be great parents and do a great job,, single parenthood is neverthless the number one reason for children growing up in poverty in the USA.

You:     I don't disagree with that.

In this conversation there is no need for any cut and paste or link to support it.

But if it goes:

You:     I don't believe that.  Can you support it?

Then, it would be incumbant upon me to find a credible source or sourcves to back it up.

And, if you still didn't want to agree with it, it would be incumbant upon you to find a credible source or sourves to refute it.

But EVERY expressed opinion doesn't need to be accompanied by a lot of cut and paste or links.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 31, 2012)

So far, a link to a ridiculously biased site... the HuffPuff... and a reference to Mitt as 'the rat' in a clean debate title. I'm not seeing anything other than same ole, same ole here. Of course, it does assist the intellectually challenged to whine without risking being called out on their whining.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

And multiple threads with no clear premise, and zero supporting evidence.

Unsubscribed.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste.  Now THAT is boring beyond belief.  I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support.  Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me.  If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source.  If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.



Exactly. I am far from the only one who has noticed there are great minds on this board, but they got in the habit of "everybody who looks like you, and the horse you rode in on" - and calling THAT debating.

Nor is it debating to jump from thread to thread mocking and maligning the OP, yet the biggest sobbing sisters on this board are doing exactly that.

It will take time, but this little folder is already on page two of new threads, so I think she's got a shot.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)




----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste.  Now THAT is boring beyond belief.  I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support.  Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me.  If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source.  If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.
> ...



There is always the risk of spamming the forum with meaningless threads too or subject matter that is not conducive to a good exchange of differing points of view.  Hopefully those will go by the wayside and that too will encourage people to put more effort into their O.P. in a way to facilitiate a good discussion instead of just hammering home a biased point of view.

And while we all won't be interested in every subject, if we all don't make an effort to support those threads with well thought out and competent O.P.'s, it will take the Forum a lot longer to really get off the ground.

There will absolutely be a learning curve here for many who have never even tried the concept, and it will take a bit for many to grasp the principles involved and get into the spirit of the thing.  Hopefully we will be allowed time for that to happen.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste.  Now THAT is boring beyond belief.  I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support.  Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me.  If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source.  If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.



And that is my point. A proper debate forum is not a cut and paste from the HuffPuff with no opinion from the thread starter. That's just hiding behind rules because the OP is not capable of defending his/her position without regurgitating. Proper debate is intellectually stimulating... and that is not what this forum is.


----------



## Liability (Jul 31, 2012)

Assert a fact or three.  Be prepared to back up, support and link to prove those facts.

Apply the facts to a logical syllogism.  It isn't magic and it need not be all that difficult.

Offer the conclusion as now being "established."

The counter-arguments should be able to either attack the truth value of the alleged facts (preferably with links that aren't just opinion pieces).  Or, the counter-argument could instead attack the logical validity (the invalidity) of the logic contained within the syllogism.  Then, the counter-argument could dispute the validity of the conclusion.

All mortals are beings who although alive will some day be dead.

Men are mortal.

My dog is mortal.

Therefore my dog is a man.

All of the first three factual assertions are TRUE.  There is NO logical connection, however, between those FACTS and the proposed "conclusion."  It is an invalid argument AND the conclusion itself is FALSE.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)

Liability said:


> Assert a fact or three.  Be prepared to back up, support and link to prove those facts.
> 
> Apply the facts to a logical syllogism.  It isn't magic and it need not be all that difficult.
> 
> ...




But who's going to inform the dog?


----------



## Liability (Jul 31, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Assert a fact or three.  Be prepared to back up, support and link to prove those facts.
> ...



I like to keep the bitches in the dark!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste.  Now THAT is boring beyond belief.  I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support.  Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me.  If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source.  If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.
> ...



It is all in one's definition of what a 'proper debate forum' is.  If we get a place where civil discussion can take place, I will be a happy camper.  Those who want a formal debate forum may also get their wish--it's a free country--but I've already experienced that and it hasn't worked out very well anywhere it has been tried on a message board format.

Self moderation, praising those who get into the spirit, leading and teaching by example is the only way it will work.  Insulting and diminishing those who haven't yet grasped the concept but are not technically breaking the rules is the surest way to make it fail.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 31, 2012)

The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.



But they don't have to.  Some of our most combative members have the ability to articulate a civilly expressed point of view if they wish to do so.

Maybe the issue is more the semantics than anything else?  CK, maybe change the word 'debate' to 'discussion' would help so that wouldn't be such a source of apparent angst?   I am not going to apologize for preferring threads that aren't intended to be automatic flame fields or preferring discussions that don't inevitably dissolve into ad hominem and food fights and insult fests.  And I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing the mods to dispense any necessary discipline rather than want that to be my  privilege and/or responsibility to do so.


----------



## Dante (Jul 31, 2012)

Debates as practiced in class or debating societies are not about truth or facts. They are usually about winning an argument with tactics and strategies.

Winning a debate doesn't always equal being correct or right. Propagandists can and do win debates. Lying through omission can win one a debate.


----------



## Dante (Jul 31, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> IMHO, it comes down to keeping an open mind not only on what someone else posts, but what you posted also.   I am frequently wrong, and not ashamed to admit it.
> 
> Other thing is, if someone posts something you disagree with, you have every right to make an opposing case.   But you shouldn't be trying to denigrate or marginalize what someone else has written;   most of the time there is a kernal of truth in it.



Kernels of truth aren't the type of truths people are seeking. Kernels of truth? Nazis were good, they made the trains run on time.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The proposed conditions are what I adhere to. I can see they would eliminate the majority of posts.
> ...




Good suggestion.  People seem to be getting snagged on the term "debate".


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 31, 2012)

How about just stating your view and the reasons you have for it?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Yes, that seems to be the primary burr under everybody's saddle.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't want 'support your argument' to become just page after page after page of links and cut and paste.  Now THAT is boring beyond belief.  I want people to articulate an argument for their point of view that may or may not be accompanied by somebody else's opiinion for support.  Having a conversation with people is the most interesting form of 'debate' to me.  If their opinion or expressed concept is challenged, THEN support it with an outside source.  If they can't support their opinion/concept with a credible source, and the other person can refute it with a credible source, then it is obvious to all who had the better argument.
> ...



Well I am currently engaged in a few discussion in this forum that I find quite intellectually stimulating and I am thoroughly enjoying them.   So again I suppose it is how either of us would define that.  And I am really REALLY enjoying not having to worry about the trolls and disrupters showing up to derail them.   I'm liking that a lot.

But hey, nothing is everybody's cup of tea.  Those who don't like the idea of the CDZ certainly have lots and lots of other places to do their thing.   But I do rather resent being referred to by various derogatory characterizations because I enjoy a Forum like this and I really wish more people would adopt a live and let live attitude about it.

I have suggested that CK substitute "discussion" for the term "debate" to remove that as a bone of contention.

In fact, to remove two bones of contention, suggest renaming it CIVIL DISCUSSION ZONE with the same guidelines/rules in place.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jul 31, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.
> 
> 1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.  Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.
> 
> ...



In debate, it is important to remember that you, and the point you are making are two different things. Two things many people lose sight of.


----------



## MeBelle (Jul 31, 2012)

California Girl said:


> So far, a link to a ridiculously biased site... the HuffPuff... and a reference to Mitt as 'the rat' in a clean debate title. I'm not seeing anything other than same ole, same ole here. Of course, it does assist the intellectually challenged to whine without risking being called out on their whining.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

I am all for it. However, given that academia and any serious discussion of theory, issues and controversy cannot be had without a set of boundaries, this will fail unless a set of acceptable sources for information is accepted.

To simply say that you must support your argument and debate points with facts and/or links to supporting evidence is not enough.  There must be limits placed on what will be acceptable sources of information.  Bias exists everywhere, but it is no more prevalent than in the media.

Acceptable sources of information and research MUST be established prior to any real debate, or the entire premise fails.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> I am all for it. However, given that academia and any serious discussion of theory, issues and controversy cannot be had without a set of boundaries, this will fail unless a set of acceptable sources for information is accepted.
> 
> To simply say that you must support your argument and debate points with facts and/or links to supporting evidence is not enough.  There must be limits placed on what will be acceptable sources of information.  Bias exists everywhere, but it is no more prevalent than in the media.
> 
> Acceptable sources of information and research MUST be established prior to any real debate, or the entire premise fails.



If you are conducting a formal debate yes.  But as I have tried to get across, formal debate does not work well in the message board format.  Members come and go to the thread and there can be long lapses between posts with multiple other members chiming in during the interim.  And with the vast resources available to us on the internet, establishing a limited list of acceptable sources would be really short sighted.

I think those interested in participating in civil debate are capable of judging whether a source is acceptable and  are capable of civilly explaining why they do not consider a source credible.

It isn't as if anybody is going to be declaring a winner and handing out medals.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I am all for it. However, given that academia and any serious discussion of theory, issues and controversy cannot be had without a set of boundaries, this will fail unless a set of acceptable sources for information is accepted.
> ...


I disagree.

There really is only a direction of truth, but that direction and the facts that surround the issue are just those.  Tangible facts. 

The rest of it is spin and outright lies.  

Why should I bother to engague in what is termed "clean debate" without at the minimum, establishing some ground rules and boundaries.

Besides, what is the difference if it is face to face or online?  The issue is framed, the pros and cons are established and then people stand up to make their case.

In the end, it is a debate.  Not a Policy session which will determine the outcome of peoples fate.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 31, 2012)

Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion.  It doesn't have to be formal.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion.  It doesn't have to be formal.


Well, I agree.  

All to often, however, people are met with the "LINK?" accusation to support their claim, and to be a bit blunt, even in this this OP, the notion of supporting evidence is a key requirement for the entire forum premise.

I don't disagree with this idea, or the forum.  In fact, I would find it refreshing.

However, logic means different things to different people it seems, and a conclusion, chased down from a premise, based upon evidence provided, does not seem to qualify anymore.

So, I personally (there is no force of requirement obviously) would like to see limits placed upon the sources of information that can be used.

There are far to many biased sources (both left and right) and to many agenda's to know what is acceptable and what is not.

Hell, our esteemed professors in our universities require the students to use only those sources they deem acceptable.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion.  It doesn't have to be formal.
> ...


Logic, like mathematics, is specific and exact.

If it means something other than what it is, that is simple ignorance on the part of the interpreter.  2+5=7 is just the way it is - the rules are specific and definite in both math and logic.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Then explain Politics and the art of spin.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 31, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


The last time I saw politics follow logic is.....................

Ummmm.................


Er....................

Never.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




The prosecution rests....


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 1, 2012)

Politics...logic...?
It is illogical to link the two.


----------



## Dante (Aug 1, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion.  It doesn't have to be formal.
> ...



Logic? When posts contain references and wild accusations that take a thread off topic, what would you do? Would you ask (politely) that people provide a credible source and stay on topic or leave? What would you do if that course of action was edited and penalized while explicit insults like (dolt) were left unedited?

Would you then believe there is any sincerity to have a Clean Zone?


----------



## Dante (Aug 1, 2012)

Darkwind said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Spin deals with facts. It is not lying through omission, which is propaganda. Spinning is an art. People do it all the time when dealt a bad hand. 

Politics is the art of compromise. Without compromise there would be no Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederacy, or US Constitution.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

There are, however, logical conclusions to be drawn from observation, discussion, and development of arguments. And it is these logical conclusions that makes a discussion whether it be politics or socioeconomic issues or moral imperative or whatever interesting to discuss.  You start making a discussion nothing more than a battle of links and cut and paste, most of which dissolve into a squabble of which sources are credible and which are not, and the thread either dies or becomes just another food fight.

Sure if the OP is a statement such as "Harry Reid Accuses Mitt Romney of not releasing tax forms because he paid no taxes in prior years", a link to a source for such an provocative statement is in order.

My thread on the New Emancipation Proclamation is wholly my own creation, however, and no link exists, though I am prepared to defend every statement in it.  In the politics forum, I am pretty sure it would have already drawn the usual detractors and trouble makers to disrupt the good discussion in progress.  In the CDZ we don't have to put up with that.

And it is great.  And even without a lot of links and cut and pastes, we are having a good give and take discussion.

Too many 'rules' can spoil the soup just as not following ANY rules.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Aug 1, 2012)

People seem to be trying to pass debates as pasted news articles with 2 sentences of the poster's opinion lol.


----------



## Dante (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> There are, however, logical conclusions to be drawn from observation, discussion, and development of arguments. And it is these logical conclusions that makes a discussion whether it be politics or socioeconomic issues or moral imperative or whatever interesting to discuss.  You start making a discussion nothing more than a battle of links and cut and paste, most of which dissolve into a squabble of which sources are credible and which are not, and the thread either dies or becomes just another food fight.
> 
> Sure if the OP is a statement such as "Harry Reid Accuses Mitt Romney of not releasing tax forms because he paid no taxes in prior years", a link to a source for such an provocative statement is in order.
> 
> ...



I started up an old thread revisited asking if President Obama deserved credit for saving GM. Along the way accusations of Obama and the IRS doing illegal things took thread the off topic. Comments asking people to stay on topic were edited out. A specific insult (dolt) was not edited out.

The thread time line became unintelligible...no one could enter and follow it. 

Why bother? Why attempt a discussion when asking people to stay on topic (without insults) is edited out?

Why bother?

how can a vibrant community exist when it is given no voice and no respect?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

I and several other people have good threads out there that were so messed up by the trolls and detractors that those who created them abandoned them and they went by the wayside way ahead of their prime.  I would very much like to re-create two or three those from scratch so they could actually be discussed.  I wouldn't want them brought with edits to the CDZ because they wouldn't make any sense with half the dscussion removed as you say.  Some of those I might start over under a new heading though.

Even in my Emancipation Proclamation thread previously mentioned, there are good points being made that are straying off the topic.  It requires skill of the thread starter and a few others participating to bring the train back onto the tracks  and not allow the discussion to become a mishmash of unrelated topics.  But in the message board format, it also requires skills from the readers to see how widely separated but related concepts fit together.

The thread will either work because the participants grasp the concept or it won't.  That is something that is really beyond any of our control.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 1, 2012)

What I think is tricky is to have a conversation with someone about a topic, and have the mind go off on a related topic.

That's what happens to me, or I'll get interested in some aspect of a person's post that may not be exactly on target.  It's not a deliberate attempt to ruin the thread.  It's just the way my mind processes.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 1, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Just logic and/or critical thought in discussion.  It doesn't have to be formal.



Yea... that would be great... but, frankly, more than half the posters here will struggle with the first part, so the second is waaaaay too much to hope for.


----------



## Liability (Aug 1, 2012)

A little off topic:

I just put up a post.  I then realized that this was in the Zone of Cleanliness.  So, my edit was a delete.

Has any body else suddenly realized that -- oops -- this isn't the right place for this post?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> A little off topic:
> 
> I just put up a post.  I then realized that this was in the Zone of Cleanliness.  So, my edit was a delete.
> 
> Has any body else suddenly realized that -- oops -- this isn't the right place for this post?



That is the main bugaboo in this concept because it does require a lot of people used to a more combative style of participation to check to see what forum a thread is in before posting.  A suggestion was made to have CDZ thread titles in a different color but I don't know if the software would facilitate that.

I am dealing with it personally by occasionally including a reminder in my threads so new participants coming in will be advised that it is a CDZ thread.


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 1, 2012)

Well, I liked starting threads here that wouldn't get attacked or trolled. I won't be starting anymore


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Well, I liked starting threads here that wouldn't get attacked or trolled. I won't be starting anymore



?  Have one of us suggested that the CDZ doesn't protect your threads from being attacked or trolled?   That sure wasn't my intent.  That is exactly why I'm spending most of my time in the CDZ the last couple of days.  It has been great and I hope more will enjoy the more civil tone and participate.


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I liked starting threads here that wouldn't get attacked or trolled. I won't be starting anymore
> ...



Not you Foxfyre.

I just made a declaratory statement.

Both threads I started are now moved to wherever and can be attacked by anyone, which is why I rarely bother posting in the political forums.

It's too bad the offending posts weren't removed from the thread.

There is Good News!  Now I can NEG some posts...


----------



## Dante (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I liked starting threads here that wouldn't get attacked or trolled. I won't be starting anymore
> ...


Moderator edit
No insults allowed.


----------



## Dante (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I and several other people have good threads out there that were so messed up by the trolls and detractors that those who created them abandoned them and they went by the wayside way ahead of their prime.  I would very much like to re-create two or three those from scratch so they could actually be discussed.  I wouldn't want them brought with edits to the CDZ because they wouldn't make any sense with half the dscussion removed as you say.  Some of those I might start over under a new heading though.
> 
> Even in my Emancipation Proclamation thread previously mentioned, there are good points being made that are straying off the topic.  It requires skill of the thread starter and a few others participating to bring the train back onto the tracks  and not allow the discussion to become a mishmash of unrelated topics.  But in the message board format, it also requires skills from the readers to see how widely separated but related concepts fit together.
> 
> The thread will either work because the participants grasp the concept or it won't.  That is something that is really beyond any of our control.



Please, I have been trying to keep some threads serious for ages. I have been mildly successful. You do not need to make it appear like you are the only one who cares.

The Clean Zone screwed up what started out as a very good thread. Trolls (maybe your pals?) started to take it off topic,. 

Dante simply asked people, politely, with no flaming, to stay on topic or leave.

how the hell is that a problem?


----------



## Amelia (Aug 1, 2012)

Dante said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I and several other people have good threads out there that were so messed up by the trolls and detractors that those who created them abandoned them and they went by the wayside way ahead of their prime.  I would very much like to re-create two or three those from scratch so they could actually be discussed.  I wouldn't want them brought with edits to the CDZ because they wouldn't make any sense with half the dscussion removed as you say.  Some of those I might start over under a new heading though.
> ...




CG has been using CDZ posts to "snicker" at the CDZ and calling it a "cowards" forum and so on, while  people questioning her about that got their posts edited out.

Dante asked people not to troll/hijack his thread and his thread was moved out of the CDZ.  

There are kinks to work out.  

I hope the people who like the basic idea of the CDZ will stick around and work on it.

I hope the people who dislike the CDZ on principle will be respectful enough of USMB to enjoy the many other subforums available to them and not try to sabotage our efforts here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

> 1. DEBATE involves critical thought.



Didn't the Rs and rw's say we don't need no steenkin "critical thinking"?

Doesn't that handicap most of the board posters?



> Yes, a formal debate would be absolutely boring.



DIS-uh-GREE!!

Real debate is exciting, thought provoking and great fun. 

Just don't look for it here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> > 1. DEBATE involves critical thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



erg

I feel bad for posting that. 

Maybe, if given the chance, there could be real debate and discussion here.  I'm willing to give it a chance but must say, its hard to stay out of the mud slinging. When hit in the face with a mud pic, its hard not to throw it back.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

Dante said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I and several other people have good threads out there that were so messed up by the trolls and detractors that those who created them abandoned them and they went by the wayside way ahead of their prime.  I would very much like to re-create two or three those from scratch so they could actually be discussed.  I wouldn't want them brought with edits to the CDZ because they wouldn't make any sense with half the dscussion removed as you say.  Some of those I might start over under a new heading though.
> ...



I was under the impression that you were complaining that the edits necessary to move a thread into the CDZ were a problem for your thread.  I was simply agreeing with you that this would generally be the case with most threads moved from 'out there' into the CDZ.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. DEBATE involves critical thought.
> ...



It's going to be a learning curve for most of us I think.  Old habits are hard to break and I've had to delete and rewrite more than a few sentences before hitting the save button myself.  But it does get easier as we go along.   Just a matter of thinking a bit before we speak, so to speak, instead of doing what comes naturally.  

And honestly, there are a few threads that simply work better with some give as good as you get allowed and we have a very nice big roomy message board that accommodates it all.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Yes, its true that, on THIS board, I've fallen into the habit of answering in kind, being just as snotty and rude as the post that attacked me. Not a good thing and I take responsibility for that. 

If I (we?) stay in the CDZ, maybe we can get back our intelligent, adult selves.  Maybe we could actually have a real conversation ... ?

I would like that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Me too Luddly.  Me too.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The only way to effect change is to refuse to join anyone who wants to troll this or other forums. They are free to behave like spoiled pre-schoolers but everyone has the choice to NOT join them.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 2, 2012)

I actually came to this forum because the last forum I was on didnt allow attacks on the poster only the post. And dammit, sometimes some things just needed to be said.

that being said, I too have fallen into the snide comment quick to insult trap quite often...especially with certain people...so its refreshing to get back to actual discussion again.


and if any of you piss me right the hell off...Ill see YOU in the Flame Zone LOL


----------



## Vidi (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. DEBATE involves critical thought.
> ...



Stick to the facts  and hit them hard with them. 

*Refute* the post, not the poster.

And always try to keep an open mind.

Do those things and youll be fine.


----------



## cereal_killer (Aug 2, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...


Threads will no longer be moved. They will live and die in the CDZ. People will not be able to manipulate the system anymore. Stick with this section it WILL work out. Eventually the trouble makers will be weeded out and their permissions revoked. Those of you who want this type of forum stick with it. The ones who can't play nice in here will eventually disappear and the forum will function as it's supposed to. 

Hang in there.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 2, 2012)

Thanks CK.  We're giving it a whirl.  The dedicated efforts elsewhere to ridicule and put down those of us who WANT a forum like this are probably eroding our numbers as some members won't won't to incur their snotty personal comments.  But hopefully there are enough grown ups to make it work.

Would the board software allow CDZ thread titles to be a different color so folks coming in off the new posts or active topics lists will realize it is a CDZ thread?

And while it is not really all that much of a problem, it would give some less ammunition to use against this forum if the name was changed to Civil Discussion Zone as the terms 'clean' and 'debate' seem to be a huge issue with some.


----------



## Intense (Aug 2, 2012)

I would Ask that The Thread Titles in this Protected Forum, be given adequate Thought, before posting them. They should not be Inflammatory. There is always what you have to say, and, how you frame it.


----------



## cereal_killer (Aug 2, 2012)

There is an announcement on this as well

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/238012-announcement-cdz.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 2, 2012)

Intense said:


> I would Ask that The Thread Titles in this Protected Forum, be given adequate Thought, before posting them. They should not be Inflammatory. There is always what you have to say, and, how you frame it.



Or at least if the thread title could be interpreted as inflammatory, explain the reason for it in the opening line of the OP.  One of Mebelle's threads, for instance,referring to "Mitt 'the rat'" or some such is an excellent thread and the term came from another source she was using.  Unfortunately she didn't adequately explain that and therefore it was criticized as being derogatory in a way that she did not intend.


----------



## cereal_killer (Aug 2, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Thanks CK.  We're giving it a whirl.  The dedicated efforts elsewhere to ridicule and put down those of us who WANT a forum like this are probably eroding our numbers as some members won't won't to incur their snotty personal comments.  But hopefully there are enough grown ups to make it work.
> 
> Would the board software allow CDZ thread titles to be a different color so folks coming in off the new posts or active topics lists will realize it is a CDZ thread?
> 
> And while it is not really all that much of a problem, it would give some less ammunition to use against this forum if the name was changed to Civil Discussion Zone as the terms 'clean' and 'debate' seem to be a huge issue with some.


Like I said in the announcement it's not going anywhere and is here to stay. The people that can't abide by the simple guidelines set forth will eventually have their privileges revoked after 3 strikes. So it's a temporary problem with a permanent solution. Keep that in mind. The forum will work and is working, we just ironed out some bumps.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 2, 2012)

cereal_killer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks CK.  We're giving it a whirl.  The dedicated efforts elsewhere to ridicule and put down those of us who WANT a forum like this are probably eroding our numbers as some members won't won't to incur their snotty personal comments.  But hopefully there are enough grown ups to make it work.
> ...



And I appreciate that.  The only thing is I don't want anybody to get booted out of the forum because they didn't notice that threads were  in the CDZ zone.   There are a lot of folks who enjoy a more combative style on threads where that is allowed, but who also enjoy the non-combative atmosphere in the CDZ.    But I know some have received warnings ONLY because they forgot to look to see what forum they were posting in.

I am already learning to appreciate some folks in the CDZ that I had formerly considered hopeless trolls.      They actually do think and have some good debating skills and are giving me a good run for my money as worthy opponents and I am liking that a lot.   We do need to be sure everybody has the best possible chance to catch on to the new thing.


----------



## cereal_killer (Aug 2, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


No worries, the mods know mistakes happen.....


----------



## Swagger (Aug 2, 2012)

I have a question unrelated to the debating guidelines/criteria, but I thought I'd pose it here seeing as an administrator's present.

I have a thread I want to post that's premise is based on the work of an esteemed academic that writes on LiveJournal, an outlet that is fiercely protective of its content. My OP will draw heavily on the research found at LiveJournal, but I'd make that obvious via a disclaimer. I can either attch a collage of sanctioned PDFs, or attempt to construct my own OP based on the PDFs I've downloaded, without blatantly plagiarising. I assume the latter would be more favourable in terms ease/convenience.

What's the best course of action?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 2, 2012)

Swagger said:


> I have a question unrelated to the debating guidelines/criteria, but I thought I'd pose it here seeing as an administrator's present.
> 
> I have a thread I want to post that's premise is based on the work of an esteemed academic that writes on LiveJournal, an outlet that is fiercely protective of its content. My OP will draw heavily on the research found at LiveJournal, but I'd make that obvious via a disclaimer. I can either attch a collage of sanctioned PDFs, or attempt to construct my own OP based on the PDFs I've downloaded, without blatantly plagiarising. I assume the latter would be more favourable in terms ease/convenience.
> 
> What's the best course of action?



In my opinion, if you want a good discussion, keep it relatively simple, provide an easy-to-read and reasonably short summary of the thesis and provide a link or links for further reading.

Even I shy away from threads that require a great deal of reading of more pedantic material or in which there is no clear point that one is trying to accomplish.   (Except for those of mine that fall into that category of course.  )


----------



## cereal_killer (Aug 2, 2012)

Swagger said:


> I have a question unrelated to the debating guidelines/criteria, but I thought I'd pose it here seeing as an administrator's present.
> 
> I have a thread I want to post that's premise is based on the work of an esteemed academic that writes on LiveJournal, an outlet that is fiercely protective of its content. My OP will draw heavily on the research found at LiveJournal, but I'd make that obvious via a disclaimer. I can either attch a collage of sanctioned PDFs, or attempt to construct my own OP based on the PDFs I've downloaded, without blatantly plagiarising. I assume the latter would be more favourable in terms ease/convenience.
> 
> What's the best course of action?


Yes, the latter would be a better choice. I'd also recommend you keep it simple and succinct otherwise you might lose some people. May be a tough one to do though from the looks of it.

The very least keep it somewhat simple.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 2, 2012)

Thanks for the input, Fox & CK. I assumed that the latter would be the best course of action. But I thought it best to alert the admin as I know from reading their site that LiveJournal are very proactive in terms of monitoring the internet for violations of copyright concerning the research they publish.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 2, 2012)

people are already arguing about arguing? That's hilarious. This board was a great idea. Maybe some actual debates can happen without insults being strewn left and right just because you belong to a particular side, and we can actually talk about the issues at hand and get some ego's out of the way.


----------



## Yurt (Aug 10, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.
> 
> DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.



exactly.  unless you're in an actual debate competition, is it NOT always about winning.  i debate most of the time without a single thought of winning, instead i debate to expand my horizons or challenge those i'm talking with.  i've learned more from "losing" a debate than "winning" a debate.


----------



## oldfart (Sep 16, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.



I hope you had as much fun with your debate experience as I had in mine, both as a debater in high school and college and as a debate coach.  Someone has posted a link to the formal rules of forensic debate which may be helpful, but I think most folks will be aided by some more general lessons.  

1.  In formal debate each team alternates the side of the question they represent.  There are some technical reasons for this (most topics are "unbalanced" at the start of the season and the alternating corrects for this bias), but the major reason is to instill a point:  just because you can win an argument does not make you right!  While I am not suggesting we alternate sides, I am noting that skill in debating leads to civility in disourse and there is a huge penalty for ad hominems.  

2.  There is a well defined question at the start of each debate.  I think this board would be much improved if everyone started a thread with with a well developed thesis sentence and if every post also began with such a statement.  I especially abhor the practice of posting lengthy quotes which do not have a clear singular statement.   



Si modo said:


> 1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.



Advocacy like reasoning itself rests on two pillars:  logic and evidence.  Logic has to do with the structure of an argument while evidence has to do with the factual testing of premises and assumptions.  The evidence should support the lowest level of premises which should support the next level up to the thesis of the argument.  Conversely an argument can be attacked by disputing the evidence or contesting the logic.  Most good rebuttal requires both.  

Finally academic debate puts a premium on good organization.  If you are going to assert or attack a position on three points, state at the start that there are three points, number them, state them, show how they support or refute the thesis, and use logic and evidence to back up your position.  And at the end review them again.  

Best of luck to everyone.  

Jamie


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 16, 2012)

I too have been on debate teams, have been a debate coach, have been a debate judge.

Unless the participants can stick around to complete the entire debate at one sitting, and unless there are judges present and who can step in if proper protocol is violated, a message board is not conducive to formal debate.  I have seen it attempted on other forums, but it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and too often even the participants tire of it and quit before any conclusion is accomplished.

A message board can, however, provide a good forum for those expressing their convictions and testing whether those convictions will hold up under scrutiny and challenge.  If the CDZ accomplishes nothing more than keeping a thread from dissolving into a food fight or pissing context, I will be a happy camper.

I still wish thread titles in the CDZ could be a different color to alert members that it is the CDZ.  We already have people permanently banned from the CDZ who had potential to be good participants.

And I wish the title of the forum would be changed to Civil Discussion Zone to remove the confusion of the term 'debate' and the stigma some have attached to the term 'clean' that continues to keep people from posting in this forum.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> I would really like to see threads started require a source/link. This will cut down on "I heard/think" threads that leave nothing up for debate but attacking each other.
> 
> 1: Link/source
> 
> ...


I've been to that board, too. That's why I came here instead.


----------



## jaymiewilson (Dec 3, 2012)

Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## MaryL (Dec 15, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.
> 
> 1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.  Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.
> 
> ...



But on the other hand, there is the you -are- a- poopyhead train of thought that seems so popular nowadays. Don't write  them off. They vote.  They supported GW BUSH and Obama. And that is why we are doing so good now.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 23, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.
> 
> 1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.  Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.
> 
> ...


My speech class teacher had an interesting way of making sure No.4 on the list was enforced (so to speak) in a formal debate, with one caveat:

*"You could not state your point, until you were able to 
state the oppositions point, back to them, to their satisfaction."​*Only then, could you move on to your actual rebuttal.

Basically, if you don't know   the point someone else is making, then you don't know what you're responding to.  And if you don't know what you're responding to, then you don't know what you're talking about.  At that point, you're no longer debating, you're just pontificating your own personal views to the world.

Regarding the "burden of proof", the one who initially makes a claim, _does have _the "burden" of providing corroborative citations to back up that claim.  Otherwise, it's just treated as an opinion and not a fact.  However, after that, the "burden of proof" shifts to the "objector" to provide corroborative evidence to show their "objection" has merit.  In a court of law, if you cannot show your "objection" is:

relevent to the case
logically conclusive
is reasonably interpreted 
the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) will throw it out as being "frivolous" and will not even allow it to be entered into the court record.

Simply not believing what someone says, is the same as thinking things for no reason.  And in a formal debate, it's all about the _*"ability to reason"*_.


----------



## Circe (Jan 28, 2013)

Si modo said:


> ... you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.




Well --- what is the difference? Between a fact and an opinion.

I have come to think this is something of a Zen question. Senator Patrick Moynihan said we have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. But there is so much division over which facts are "true" (assuming there could be untrue facts) and which aren't that I suspect someone's facts are simply opinions that he really, really wants everyone to agree on so he can win his argument. 

For instance, in another forum somebody repeatedly asserted that there have only been one or two cases of mass shootings using AR-15s. Someone would post data about many mass shootings in which AR-15s were used, greeted by silence, and a day later he is saying again, and clearly believing, that there have only been one or two such cases. 

You could say, well, just don't argue with this guy. But it's a common occurance -- facts are opinions, opinions are facts. Consider that most of the world apparently believes that the Twin Towers were taken down by George Bush or Mossad or both. To them, these are facts, and they develop their arguments accordingly. 

Facts are opinions someone particularly wants privileged, I suspect. What to do about this issue?


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Circe said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > ... you must recognize what an opinion is and what a fact is.
> ...



Yes, opinions are often stated as facts.   That does not make them facts.

Facts can be measured and backed up most of the time.    In some rare cases they cannot only because they were never quantified.

As an example, I recently mentioned the fact that in the golden age of the 50's, many times women and children were abused and these abuses were shoved under the carpet or ignored by society.

Now this is a factual statement as anyone who was around in those times will tell you.    But the statistics can be tough to verify and quantify as the entire point was societal ignorance on the subject at hand...

So my point is, yes and no.   And that's a fact!


----------



## Circe (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Yes, opinions are often stated as facts.   That does not make them facts.
> 
> Facts can be measured and backed up most of the time.    In some rare cases they cannot only because they were never quantified.
> 
> ...



You would say it's a fact if it has been measured and that measurement can be cited.

If there is no way to cite anything which has not been measured, should people assert it as a fact? Your example is that women and children were frequently abused during the fifties (and before, same argument) but the whole point is that this was ignored by society, so there were no statistics. 

Maybe we could use different forms of proof from one time or society than in another. For instance, climate change. There is said to have been a little Ice Age, from maybe 1350 to 1850, and a Medieval Warming Period earlier that allowed the temporary settlement of Greenland by Vikings; when it cooled again, they had to leave. There were no thermometer records, however. We could use the transitory settlement as evidence, and what they were able to grow; and perhaps records of the Thames and Rhine freezing and such for the later cooling. 

There is some problem here with bad facts, which the climate change brouhaha has treated us to: lies, errors, propaganda that are promoted as fact but later generally discounted, like a Piltdown Man.

Opinions are often stated as fact: however, another problem is that facts are so often considered opinion.  People believe their very own "facts" because they want to, whether they are true in any measurement sense or not. Without a referee, there is nothing to be done about this --- people have no basis for agreement or even for sensible argument if there is no common ground of fact. And there isn't: there is no common ground of reality. What is viewed as reality by some is considered lies, damned lies, and statistics by others.

I'm working on what personally to do about this persistent problem of the human condition.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Something stated as fact on a message board should be supportable with reliable evidence or testimony from an authoritative source.  Eye witness testimony is acceptable in any debate/argument but it can also be challenged as to whether the person is a reliable witness or whether he/she is in error or lying about it.

The same statement copied and repeated endlessly in the media, on message boards, etc. etc. etc. is NOT evidence that the information is correct.   The truth of that is multiplied many times over if it is somebody else's opinion that is being copied and repeated endlessly, most especially when it is taken out of context or altered in any way.

And no matter how expert or credible the witness, how authoritative the opinion of the scientific group, how pretty or impressive the chart, graph, or other data used, there is always room to challenge the information, whether there are extenuating circumstances, whether there is motive to present conclusions in a certain way, and whether other facts support what appears to be.

Such is the foundaton of give and take in a formal debate, in a court trial, or in any exploration for the best truth available to us.

The person who wants to get it right is always going to be a much better debater than the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post whether he can defend his/her opinion or not.

And the worst debaters are those who are content to attack their opponent and don't care who is right or wrong.  Not liking your opponent personally and insulting him/her personally gets you reprimanded in court and on the debate team.  It doesn't earn you any points as a competent debater.

Any opinion worth having can be defended on its own merits without having to attack anybody else or his/her opinion.  If you can't defend your opinion without referencing somebody else or putting somebody down, it is almost certain to be wrong.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Something stated as fact on a message board should be supportable with reliable evidence or testimony from an authoritative source.  Eye witness testimony is acceptable in any debate/argument but it can also be challenged as to whether the person is a reliable witness or whether he/she is in error or lying about it.
> 
> The same statement copied and repeated endlessly in the media, on message boards, etc. etc. etc. is NOT evidence that the information is correct.   The truth of that is multiplied many times over if it is somebody else's opinion that is being copied and repeated endlessly, most especially when it is taken out of context or altered in any way.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Something stated as fact on a message board should be supportable with reliable evidence or testimony from an authoritative source.  Eye witness testimony is acceptable in any debate/argument but it can also be challenged as to whether the person is a reliable witness or whether he/she is in error or lying about it.
> ...



LOL.  And of course I thanked your post as evidence of your appreciation for great wisdom and acknowledgement of statement of fact.  

Actually my entire post was exoressed opinion--except for the part about what is accepted as fact in formal debate or in a court of law.  But my opinion I know is informed opinion and it is possible I could be considered to have credentials sufficient to make my 'expert' opinion credible as 'fact' in a court of law.   I just can't make that case on a message board.  (And it is quite possible I couldn't make that case in a court of law either.  )

So a really quality message board discussion is sometimes not just a boring recitation of "facts", and certainly is not an exchange of personal insults, but is a give and take of opinion.   The one who can make the most persuasive argument for a point of view, and such opinion cannot be discredited with 'fact' is the winner.  Unless he or she is so unpopular, the argument will be dismissed because of who the messenger is.

I did like Loinboy's speech teacher's concept a lot:
"You could not state your point until you were able to 
state the opposition's point back to them to their satisfaction."

In my opinion, it is not only an inability to do that, but the refusal to do that which is the primary reason for so many troll threads, food fights, and utter nonsense that so many utilize to entertain themselves with here.   In judging formal debates, misstating your opponent's position was one of the worst infractions and cost you a lot of points.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I was going to thank you but then I read the bit about "the person who is happy to just get thanks on his/her post " and thought it inappropriate!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



It isn't inappropriate if you value honest intelligent debate.   Fooling others into believing you know what you are talking about is NOT the same thing as knowing what you are talking about.  Or being judgmental and hateful in the same way as another is NOT constructive debate.

Just because others thank your post does not make it a good post based on good information.  And those who are intellectually honest would rather BE right than just have others approve of something they said.

I am honored, however, when I post something I absolutely have reason to believe is the truth, and others I admire and value their judgment thank me for posting it.  That kind of affirmation feels really good.

And those who go out of their way to post something hateful or critical of another member, however untrue, will almost inevitably be thanked by their cronies and toadies.    Such is not the substance of good debate.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I agree.   Meant that to be funny more than anything...

We are speaking the same language.   

Nothing is more frustrating to me than trying to have a meaningful discussion and someone continually misinterpreting what I say (often intentionally) or going negative.   It's like the conversation has reverted to elementary schoolyard tactics.    

This isn't to say I am perfect on that front.   I have been known to throw a jab from time to time (usually in response to idiocy).   But I certainly don't make it a habit.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jan 28, 2013)

What is a fact? - it is an idea that is supported by evidence but not necessarily a truth.
ie: In 1492CE it was a fact that a man could not build a machine with which to fly through the air.
...  Today it is a fact the man can build a machine with which to fly through the air.

What is truth? - Truth is an idea that has always been, is now, and always will be true and can be substantiated.
ie: Hydrogen is the lightest element. 

A debate is the free and logical exchange of ideas, opinions, facts and truths in the search for understanding of a topic for those involved and those who listen.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



None of us are perfect.  And we should all make allowances for those times somebody words something awkwardly, or forgets to include a qualifier that makes their comment read differently than intended.  The good debater will acknowledge the flawed post and correct it.   The honorable debaters will allow the other the correction.

The numbnut, after saying something really dumb, will do his/her damndest to defend it.  And that usually results in the thread going off the tracks.  Or he or she will continue to pull the 'mistake' out of the pack and quote it over and over as what the other member said.   Once a member is put into the position of spending his/her time defending a comment that never should have to be defended, the wheels often come off that thread too.

But a thread is going nowhere if Debater #1 says:  "A 16 trillion dollar debt is unacceptable" and the reponse from Debater #2 is "You want kids to starve and old folks to be thrown out into the streets."

. . . .or. . . .

Debater #1:   Everything wasn't wrong with the 50's and we should not be afraid to encourage those things that were good.

Debater #2:   Debater #1 thinks the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages.

Enough interchanges like that tend to make message boards a really unattractive diversion.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 28, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Sure, if such a thing as your second example actually happened it would be problematic.   However, if debater 2 were involved in a discussion with multiple people and instead said,

" Many on your side of the debate think the 50's were perfect and we should all return to the dark ages."

, and was then misquoted in multiple threads, that would equally be annoying, wouldn't you think?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



I would challenge the statement.  I would ask for the names of those who 'think the 50's were perfect" or any other valid evidence such was the case.  And if the member could not produce the requested information, I would call his statement in error and unsupportable.  Because it would be.   And in an honest debate, that would end the matter.

On the other hand, if he said "In my opinion, I think most on your side think the 50's were perfect", I could honestly counter that I have never encountered anybody on my side or any other side who think the 50's were perfect; therefore unless you have something other than your opinion to support that, I have to believe you are wrong about that.

And that should end it.

Those who deliberately and intentionally misquote others are dishonest trolls.   And those who keep repeating the same wrong dumb statement, are just. . . .well. . .dumb.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



But there again remember in an earlier post when it was pointed out how important it is to understand the view of the person you are debating?

The person you are speaking of obviously was making a general statement using a literary exaggeration.    'Perfect' obviously meaning they have an exaggerated view of how good things were.   

But being dumb, what the fuck would I know?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



It is not my job in a debate to decipher the underlying intent or point of view of the other.  If I take literally a comment that you make, it is incumbant upon you to explain that you intended the remark as exaggeration.   And if you do, then if I am an honorable debater, I will accept that.

Now for sure, some comments are so obviously intended as sarcasm or as humor, any intelligent person would recognize it as such.

But a comment of say accusing a group of thinking the 50's was perfect does not necessary fall into that category unless there has been some banter about that leading into it.

On a message board, we do not have the advantage of vocal inflection and hand gestures, and body language to qualify a remark that we don't mean to be taken literally.  It is therefore necessary that any qualifications need to be verbally expressed as the reader cannot always know us well enough to know what we do and not not intend to be taken literally.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes,  yes I know all that.  

But here is the thing.   When I say someone thinks an entire era is perfect, I would say that's obviously an exaggeration as nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever been perfect on the surface of the planet and everyone knows this to be the case.

I might be wrong.   But I doubt it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Yeah, I think you're wrong.  I think there are those who think that if I say I don't want my taxes raised, they interpret that as I think all taxes are bad or I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

There are those who think that if I promote a loving two-parent family as the very best circumstance for rearing children that I am denigrating single parents or saying single parents suck.  (Present company included )

There are those who think that if I see less regulation as a means of promoting ecnomic growth that I think everything should be deregulated.

There are those who think that if I say the EPA oversteps its authority or goes overboard that I think people should be allowed to pollute the air, water, soil at will.

There are those who think that if I think a person should be allowed to have a cigarette in his own home as a matter of personal choice that I am in favor of people getting lung cancer.

I think we cannot assume that anybody will interpret what we say as we intend.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Maybe you are right.   But I thought I was talking with someone who would interpret things as I intended.   I apologize if I was wrong.  

Anyway, we've wasted enough time and energy on this divergence.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



It's always safest not to assume.  (There's an urban definition out there for 'assume' )

But much of what was said here I think is important and could be helpful on a thread devoted to what is effective debate.  To give people benefit of the doubtm and to ask for clarification if there is any doubt about intent, can avoid a lot of unnecessary disagreement.    When we inadvertently leave out a qualifier or the smiley for humor or otherwise write something we did not intend, we cannot blame those for taking us at face value in what we did write.   And in a civil debate, when we realize we misspoke and correct it, it helps if others understand that this happens and lets us off the hook for the unintended statement.

And I will say Underhlll, that despite discussions that contain a lot of emotional content and can be some of the most polarizing message board subject matter, and though we have disagreed on various points, you have kept it civil and intelligent.

For what it is worth, I dub thee a worthy debater.


----------



## Underhill (Jan 30, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Why thank you fine sir.    And you as well.

We better move on before the proverbial 'they' labels us as soft targets....


----------



## Circe (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm thinking this is a gated community.

I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts. 

At first the Internet was mostly highly intelligent people who could manage to deal with modems and computers and hard drives and so on -- if you couldn't do it yourself, it wasn't going to happen.

Now anyone can buy a computer that connects with the Web seamlessly through their Comcast connection, plug it in, go to any news article and make a one-line obscenity post: and they do just that, by the millions. 

I've been expecting government and stratification to start on the Internet for the last ten years.  But all the psychotics and criminals and thugs were all mixed up with better posters; the first big breakthrough was the Ignore button. And then more moderating, government and policing. Either bad posts drive out good and everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, or else there has to be government. Government is FOR avoiding a Hobbesian state of lowest common denominator. This sort of forum is a next step, gated communities, heavily policed to keep out the thugs and crazies and let the more able people be together in some sort of safety for the kind of communication only they can do.

I've been expecting this for a long, long time and I predict it will be very popular among certain people....and the rest can continue with their one-line put-down posts and probably won't even notice it's here. I think this idea will spread all over the Internet: government!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Circe said:


> I'm thinking this is a gated community.
> 
> I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.
> 
> ...



I am a member on a couple of boards that tried the 'invitatiion only' concept and solicited only conversationalists/debaters who would agree to strict rules of civility and decorum and it produced a congenial, supportive, and pleasant environment.  Unfortunately, it also produced a community too small to be really active.   There was so much lapse of time between posts that people got bored and went elsewhere.  Threads couldn't quite get off the ground and quickly died.

But it was civil.

Hannity has a pretty good, very active, very successful board.  Those who want to be uncivil in their posting hate it and put it down while those who prefer a more civil discourse like it.  But for whatever reason, Hannity is not as successful in building a strong sense of community as USMB has been.  So I check in over there every now and then just to see what's going on.  But I spend most of my on line message board time here.

But I have hated to see people I really enjoyed being driven elsewhere due to the uncivility and some sometimes truly malicious hatefulness here.  And now we are seeing people leave, boycott forums, and try to get themselves banned to make a statement I guess because of efforts to make it more civil.  And some of those I will miss a lot too.

I honestly don't know what the answer is.  But the board remains pretty healthy it seems.  Lots and lots of active threads.

Bottom line for me is whether I can participate how I prefer to participate and enjoy the activity on a message board.  As long as I can it is all good.  When it becomes too frustrating or unpleasant, I leave.  It's great to live in a free country.

And I really REALLY don't want the government to start regulating message boards.


----------



## cereal_killer (Jan 31, 2013)

Circe said:


> I'm thinking this is a gated community.
> 
> I've been on political forums for 27 years, since Compuserve used exclamation points to end posts.
> 
> ...





Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking this is a gated community.
> ...


I'm glad both of you find this section of value and choose to participate in it. I believe it is a great forum and will thrive even more as we move forward. We are in the process of cleaning up USMessageBoard and making it a forum that will accomodate everyone, rather than a select group. 

Enjoy your stay here and I thank you for being an instrumental part of what will be an incredible forum.


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 31, 2013)

cereal_killer said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking this is a gated community.
> ...




which select group would that be?    this was a great forum till suddenly it got restrictive, to restrictive.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

I know some feel that way bones.  And are letting everybody know about it in no uncertain terms.  But in looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted.  You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--that wasn't the case a week ago--in all forums but the CDZ where none of those complaining about rules ever go anyway.

The ONLY new restriction I see is that you can't insult somebody in the Politics Forum without also  including something on the topic.  I really don't blow off how people feel about things, and I can appreciate how that would make the mods' job a lot more difficult.  But I honestly can't see how that particular new rule--it isn't even a new one; it's an enforcement of an old one--really restricts anybody in any way.  The only ones affected are those who like to throw out one line insults.  Now they have to pause long enough to figure out how to include something re the topic.  And I just can't see that as a terrible or oppressive thing.

Evenso, I have a lot of respect and affection for some of the people who do have a problem with it.  Including you.  

I am totally unaware of any other rules changes.


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 31, 2013)

i have problems when an admin says selective group and doesnt define said group....


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> i have problems when an admin says selective group and doesnt define said group....



Oh come on bones.  That's not fair.  You said it had become too restrictive without specifying what restrictions you were objecting to.  What's good for the goose and all that. . . .


----------



## cereal_killer (Jan 31, 2013)

*~ Lets please get back on topic. Thank you... ~*


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Whoops.  Okay.


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 31, 2013)

Si Modo, 

I'm sorry I missed this thread when it was first posted but I have a question, how is it every time I post something you disagree with I get a negative rep and the usual pejorative? There is no debate as you so nicely outlined above, did I miss something, can you explain. 

mc5


----------



## Amelia (Jan 31, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> Si Modo,
> 
> I'm sorry I missed this thread when it was first posted but I have a question, how is it every time I post something you disagree with I get a negative rep and the usual pejorative? There is no debate as you so nicely outlined above, did I miss something, can you explain.
> 
> mc5




Does she neg you in the CDZ?


----------



## Circe (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> ...looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted.  You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--



!! Radical. Never saw THAT before! So.....there are whole forums full of people calling each other c*nt and n*gger and that is supposed to ATTRACT people? 

I'm going to take a wild guess about what kind of people it would attract.......  

Maybe it's a way to let the other forums provide feedstock. Numbers, and then the cream rises? Could be.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Circe said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > ...looking at the big picture, some restrictions have been lifted.  You can now call somebody c*nt and n*gger and words like that with impunity if you want to--
> ...



In a sense.  The point being that debate on USMB is really not restrictive at all.  Free speech pretty much reigns everywhere with very few rules involving that and what there are seem to be reasonable.

As Underhill and I were discussing, it does get sticky at times, there will be misunderstandings, and people will get angry or irritated with each other.  There are rep bullies who really enjoy neg repping anybody they disagree with or just don't like regardless of how competent or civil a post is put down.   And I think that is unfortunate, but again, it's a free country.

Si Modo's outline in the OP here is how a formal debate should be conducted.  Further discussion, at least on my part and some of the others, has been on how the formal rules need some flexibility and modification in the message board format.   Evenso, intelligent and interesting discussions can be possible on a message board, even between two widely opposing people or groups if they stay on topic and the thread is not derailed by those who intend to derail it.  And I have long accepted that there are intelligent people on message boards who use language I wouldn't use, but hey, whatever floats somebody's boat.


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 31, 2013)

cereal killer says something and refuses to define it?  what is that all about....you are the one who used the term select group now define it......you brought it up.....


----------



## cereal_killer (Jan 31, 2013)

4 or 5 members SB 

*~Back on topic please~*


----------



## Si modo (Jan 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.

I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.

I didn't mean it to be anything in the formal sense of debate.


----------



## cereal_killer (Jan 31, 2013)

Si modo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...


You're OP is excellent and it illustrates how a civil debate should take place between participants. Not sure why you say you shouldn't have used the word debate., I mean we are, after all, in the Debate Zone


----------



## Si modo (Jan 31, 2013)

cereal_killer said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


'tis true.  We are.

But, after reviewing this thread it seems the word connotes some sort of formal activity (ie Forensics clubs, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.) to some, and I was just wanting to start with baby steps.

I think many need baby steps, but I am loving some of the input others have had in this thread (totally forgot about it).  Very nice to see that there are many more who actually DO know something about it.


----------



## Circe (Jan 31, 2013)

Si modo said:


> I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.
> 
> I rather thought my OP was more just an FYI on just some basics to constructive discussions where both sides can learn from each other or problem solve, possibly, and effectively communicate in a semi-structured manner.



So what is debate? One thing it isn't, is grunting. 

People do sort of need to use words in order to debate or discuss.

I have come to realize over the years that the one-line obscenity posts are a marker for "not too much available up top." It's not that they use the one-line, misspelled, ungrammatical, unpuncuated  obscenity post as an occasional punchy relief: it's that this is the best they can do.

And they want their way and they want it now and they get real angry real quick because they never get any of that, except sometimes from another one-line poster. 

This kind of post is the most common type, but it isn't debate, or worth much, or likely to result in good discussion or good fellowship, I find. It takes more words than many people have to develop an interesting argument. But it's better to wait for those.


----------



## Si modo (Jan 31, 2013)

Circe said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "debate" in my OP.
> ...


I enjoy a good debate, which is why I have much respect for a few posters at USMB with whom I rarely agree.

Also, I enjoy good smack talk as it makes me laugh.  

If I want the former, I can come here.

I'm a grown-up, and can make my own decisions about participating in or reading the latter.  I don't need a nanny to control what I am exposed to.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 31, 2013)

Si modo said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



All that is necessary is to know the principles involved, which you eloquently outlined.  I do think it is necessary that the actual format will be adjusted in a message board discussion  that will generally not be conducive to a formal debate because, with many participating, there is no way to express your whole point of view in an orderly premeditated organized fashion.

My debate coaches and my own style of mentoring debaters is to insist that they be able to argue all points of view before they take a side and try to make a case for a thesis.  And of course, you don't always know whether you'll be assigned the pro or con on any given topic.


----------



## cereal_killer (Jan 31, 2013)

Si modo said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


I think it's a great thread as well Si and have enjoyed going through it today. Well deserving of a sticky and a great topic/discussion


----------



## editec (Feb 2, 2013)

What is a clean debate?

It has another name...it's called* a discussion.*

People bring up a point, or an issue and others comment on it, and NOT on the person who brought the issue to our attention.



Nobody will WIN the discussion because that isn't the point of having a discussion.

the point of discussing issues isn't to score points, but rather for everyone to perhaps come away from the discussion with more insight into the subject at hand.

I look forward to having discussions with many of you.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

Si modo said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I agree with this 100%.    At the same time, I get really weary of what could have been really good discussions being totally derailed and/or turned into food fights by trolls who do it on purpose.  And that too has driven so many really good potential members from the board who get tired of nothing BUT smackdown however entertaining that is for those who do like that kind of banter.

So somewhere in there should be a balance between unrestricted free speech and an expectation of consideration for others.  I don't think it is a terrible thing that there is a CDZ.  I don't think it is a terrible thing that drive by personal insults are removed from the Politics section.   I would like for the politics forum to become more good discussion than troll threads.  It hasn't been that for some time now.

I figure the trolls, numbnuts, and other exercises in futility will likely try to disrupt and destroy the new Bullring, but I'm certainly willing to wait and see on that too.

Meanwhile, I think this is a terrific thread and valuable to discuss what a good discussion is and what a competent argument looks like.   I suspect a lot of members don't participate in such because they have never learned how.  Once they learn how, I suspect many are actually pretty intelligent folks who would enjoy it.


----------



## Michelle420 (Feb 2, 2013)

I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.

I prefer a discussion/dialogue format myself, mostly because I am not good at arguing.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

drifter said:


> I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.
> 
> I prefer a discussion/dialogue format myself, mostly because I am not good at arguing.



But even a discussion/dialogue format involving people with opposing points of view is still an argument.  The trick though is focusing on making the most persuasive points to defend your own point of view, and, as necessary, challenging the point of view of the other.  Too many people don't know how to do that without insulting somebody or something rather than making a case for why a point of view is wrong.  Or right for that matter.

And every now then, two competent 'debaters' will come to realize that even though they started out as adversaries, neither was necessarily wrong.

I do agree that formal debate rules and format on a message board don't work all that well.  Thus a message board 'debate' will be more of a discussion format.   But the principle of what is competent argument applies here just as much as in a formal debate.


----------



## Michelle420 (Feb 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> > I am not very good at debate, I enjoy reading debates between people or watching formal debates.
> ...



I have a pretty bad temper offline, those who are closest to me have said the number one thing I need to work on is patience.

I try to be polite online but I steer away from topics that I know will cause me to react immature.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

drifter said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > drifter said:
> ...



LOL.  At least you're brutally honest about it.  Actually I have found participating on message boards has helped me hone my skills somewhat.  It is tough, specially when you're the only one on a thread arguing a point of view and pretty much everybody else is taking the opposite point of view.  It really keeps you on your toes to counter all the opposing arguments being thrown at you.  And if they make it personal, especially personally insulting, it is really REALLY difficult not to be drawn into immature behavior.   I have probably deleted more retorts over the years than those I actually hit the 'submit reply' button.  

My motto is "Don't argue with idiots, don't feed the trolls, and don't engage in exercises of futility."   I'm getting better at keeping that too.  I manage to do it about 25% of the time now.


----------



## asaratis (Feb 2, 2013)

Si modo said:


> Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.
> 
> DEBATE is fundamentally growth in knowledge, and competition with logical rules drives that growth.


I spent some time at a formal debate site wherein two debaters and a moderator participated in formal debate with certain hard rules.  There was usually a trio of judges that determined the winner of that debate.  Since they were judging the effectiveness of the debater and not the correctness of claims made, it was often that the declared winner had not convinced the judges that he was right...he'd just used proper debate techniques throughout the bout.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2013)

asaratis said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'll add that although winning is nice, the REAL goal of DEBATE is a win/win - both sides learn and exit the debate with more knowledge.
> ...



Unfortunately that is the downside of formal debate.  When we judge a debate we judge on technique and effectiveness in application of the rules and presentation moreso than on how persuasive the argument actually is at arriving at the truth of the matter.  The person with a brillian argument can totally blow it by wandering into logical fallacies or ad hominem that is effectively countered by his/her opponent.

For me, opposing arguments on a message board serve two purposes:

1.  If it is something I care deeply about or is especially important to me, I do hope to educate at least some people on a particular perspective.  There is so much disinformation being distributed out there, and so much of it is no more than assigned talking points and intentional propaganda to sway public opinion, that many don't really have a chance to see something in any other way.

2.  It forces me to defend my point of view and, if I cannot do that effectively, it helps me realize that my point of view is lacking and I need to rethink it.  I can't tell you how many times I started typing out an argument to defend or oppose something, and found that I could not do it with any intellectual honesty.  So I delete the text I have created and it is back to the drawing board.


----------



## Circe (Feb 4, 2013)

I have a question in this context --- what is a "troll"?

These days, that is. Early on a troll was pretty narrowly defined -- someone who comes onto a message board simply to stir up trouble, to throw the cat among the pigeons, such as someone getting on a Christian list and posting blatently anti-Christian posts in order to produce upset argument and fighting.

Nowadays "troll" seems to be used as an all-purpose insult, like Nazi or Communist used to be, then facist. I get called a troll often, but I don't know why! I don't know what it means anymore, unless it simply means somebody the namecaller disagrees with. 

So what does "don't feed the trolls" mean, anyone have a clear concept of that?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

Circe said:


> I have a question in this context --- what is a "troll"?
> 
> These days, that is. Early on a troll was pretty narrowly defined -- someone who comes onto a message board simply to stir up trouble, to throw the cat among the pigeons, such as someone getting on a Christian list and posting blatently anti-Christian posts in order to produce upset argument and fighting.
> 
> ...



I think your original definition still holds or should.

But many people do use the term as a general insult and often just because they disagree with you.     

It can also be hard to tell the difference.   Let me explain.   

This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues.   Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition.   When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine.    I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up. 

And I was.   If all you do here is discuss things with people who agree with you, chances are you won't be around long.    So looking for a debate or discussion can be troll like, the difference is in the techniques used.    

Someone looking for real debate post opinions designed to further conversation.    A troll simply post looking for a reaction.    But the line can be fuzzy at times.


----------



## Circe (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues.   Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition.   When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine.    I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up.
> 
> And I was.   If all you do here is discuss things with people who agree with you, chances are you won't be around long.    So looking for a debate or discussion can be troll like, the difference is in the techniques used.
> 
> Someone looking for real debate post opinions designed to further conversation.    A troll simply post looking for a reaction.    But the line can be fuzzy at times.




Yeah.....There are forums or threads which have a dominant political membership, right or left, and they may well not want discussion! They want an amen corner. They want approval and agreement and if anything, they want someone to rachet up the heat -- in the direction they approve. 

I don't know why we assume people WANT debate or discussion. They may not want that at all. I've been reading about the French Revolution: if you had gone into one of the many coffee shops that served as the forums of the day and attempted to discuss the monarchical side of the question, or even if you went in dressed as upperclass after 1789, you'd have been beaten up, at best -- they didn't want discussion! They wanted revolution. 

I am not at all sure people want debate and discussion. They may simply want to hang out with like-minded people. In that case, anyone questioning the dominant ideas will be hated and destroyed or banished, if possible.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

Circe said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > This is a discussion forum, meaning people come here to discuss issues.   Now this can be interpreted as trolling if you take the broadest definition.   When I came here I was labeled a troll just because I posted in some threads where the predominant view was different than mine.    I was there to discuss, but they saw it as a guy stirring stuff up.
> ...



That's why I have limited most of my post to this section of the forum.   

I have not learned the layout of the place yet and so far have not received much in the way of welcome when I posted legitimate opinions in other sections.   I would go so far as to say at least 4 out of 5 responses were verbal attacks.    I even had several send me nasty PM's.

So I suspect you are right.


----------



## Circe (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> That's why I have limited most of my post to this section of the forum.
> 
> I have not learned the layout of the place yet and so far have not received much in the way of welcome when I posted legitimate opinions in other sections.   I would go so far as to say at least 4 out of 5 responses were verbal attacks.    I even had several send me nasty PM's.
> 
> So I suspect you are right.



Well, this place may be out of control; I gather it is, from the strong efforts being made by the mods to get it under control and make some changes for the better. Several nasty private messages is bad! The only time I saw that going on was years (okay, decades) ago on the Ms. Forum. That's poison pen stuff and that needs to be stopped. I hope and assume this software allows turning off PMs and Ignoring people at need. I haven't had occasion to check yet.

It may well be that gated communities are needed, a lowerclass and an upperclass forum,  the lowerclass one for the one-line misspelled insult posters. Apparently millions of people love to do that, and they do it all over the Internet, what can one say??!

Here's my new idea: "Home on the Range" forums. One for the right, one for the left, "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word/And the skies are not cloudy all day." These forums would be for people who really don't want to discuss: they want to affirm and be affirmed in their partisan posture. Anyone who brings up the antithesis of what people want to believe in the forum would be considered a troll and thread-banned.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2013)

Circe said:


> I have a question in this context --- what is a "troll"?
> 
> These days, that is. Early on a troll was pretty narrowly defined -- someone who comes onto a message board simply to stir up trouble, to throw the cat among the pigeons, such as someone getting on a Christian list and posting blatently anti-Christian posts in order to produce upset argument and fighting.
> 
> ...



In my opinion there are two kinds of trolls.

The first are the ones the new Politics Forum rule are intended to deal with--those who have no interest in the topic but get their jollies doing drive by one liner insults or smart aleck comments unrelated to the topic.  In themselves these aren't so much of a problem, but if other members respond to them in any way, the thread can quickly dissolve into a food fight to the point those wishing to engage in substantive discussion leave the thread to look for something more substantive. 

The second are more subtle.  These are people who enjoy pulling people's chains and derailing a thread, most especially if they don't like the person who started the thread or don't like the topic.  They are very good at knowing just what buttons to push and what code words or phrases to throw out there to accomplish their goal.  Trolling for sure, but a more sophisticated kind of trolling.   It does effectively sidetrack what otherwise could have been a good discussion.

But don't worry about the numbnuts who call you 'troll'.  It is a standard personal insult just like 'racist' or "Nazi" or 'idiot' or 'moron'  etc. used for anybody who expresses an opinion they disagree with.   You don't feed such trolls by not allowing yourself to be drawn into their web but by simply refocusing on the topic.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



I certainly hope that this was not the experience you had with me.  I very much enjoyed going toe to toe with you on another thread discussing what is one of the more volatile topics.  We found areas of agreement and some areas on which we could amicably disagree.

There are a number of members on USMB who can effectively argue an opposing point of view without becoming personally insulting and at least most, if not all of those, do a better job of it than I do.   I will admit that you pretty much have to hunt for them though.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



No, that debate was within the CDZ. 

My experience was in the common politics area when I tried to engage people with what I consider my moderate stance on gun politics.    You would have thought I suggested we take away Grandma's Social Security from the reactions I received.


----------



## Circe (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> My experience was in the common politics area when I tried to engage people with what I consider my moderate stance on gun politics.    You would have thought I suggested we take away Grandma's Social Security from the reactions I received.



"Moderate" simply means both sides hate you ----- I realized that to my sorrow years ago.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

Circe said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > My experience was in the common politics area when I tried to engage people with what I consider my moderate stance on gun politics.    You would have thought I suggested we take away Grandma's Social Security from the reactions I received.
> ...



This is true on the internet.    Out in the real world I suspect it is where most people are...


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 5, 2013)

And of course it also depends on one's definition of moderate.

To one person 'moderate' means without conviction or somebody without a clue or somebody willing to play both ends against the middle.

To another 'moderate' means a willingness to compromise.

To another, 'moderate' means going with whatever the polls deem the most advantageous view on any given day.

To another, 'moderate' means anything other than a wingnut extremist.

And the dichotomy is amplified when the 'moderates' themselves have a hard time defining it.

I honestly don't know whether I am 'moderate' or not.  I try not to pick a side until I am convinced of the side with most merit.  Those who hate me think I'm an extremist.  Those who don't usually don't.    So, I have found the best choice for me is to not allow others to define me.  But oh my, how they do try.  

For me, a 'moderate' is somebody who is capable of arguing against another person's point of view without having to insult that person and/or his/her political party or group, etc. and who doesn't need to use perjoratives to make a point.   A non moderate considers anything opposing his/her point of view to be a perjorative.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And of course it also depends on one's definition of moderate.
> 
> To one person 'moderate' means without conviction or somebody without a clue or somebody willing to play both ends against the middle.
> 
> ...



My definition of a moderate is a bit different, although I take your point and agree with the premise.

I think a moderate is someone who doesn't have a side.   Who sees things they like and dislike on both sides of the aisle.    Sometimes thinking that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Examples abound.   Gun control.  I don't think guns should be taken away but that their should be more regulation.   Abortion, I am not against all abortion but would like to see us take steps to reduce it as much as possible.    Fiscal policy, I think both sides have screwed us, just with different garden tools.    

And there are things I side with one side or the other on.   Drilling and fracking I come down on the side of the left.    But I see most other 'green' energy (windmills and solar) as largely a fringe activity that will never be mainstream.  

I could go on, but I think you get the point.    I have very strong views, but they really don't fit either side of the spectrum.    I probably lean slightly to the left.    But I'm certainly no far left democrat.

I'm actually registered as a republican because local elections are all decided in republican primaries.


----------



## Circe (Feb 5, 2013)

Underhill said:


> My definition of a moderate is a bit different, although I take your point and agree with the premise.
> 
> I think a moderate is someone who doesn't have a side.   Who sees things they like and dislike on both sides of the aisle.    Sometimes thinking that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> ...




I agree that to me moderate means strong opinions ---- but not ones that line up on one side or other of today's partisan divide. I'm pro-choice but anti-welfare. I'm against gun craziness like assault weapons and big collections, but I'm for private and uncontrolled ownership of more "normal" guns as tools. 

"Moderate" may simply mean for us not joining a team. Teams are big these days. People badly want to be able to categorize everyone as pure left or pure right. One of us, or the enemy.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

Circe said:


> "Moderate" may simply mean for us not joining a team. Teams are big these days. People badly want to be able to categorize everyone as pure left or pure right. One of us, or the enemy.



Yep.   So far as I'm concerned both teams are pretty fucked up at the moment...

It's the frustration of our republic and probably among the biggest failures of the founding fathers (as Jefferson predicted it would be).   The 2 party system has been a disaster.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 5, 2013)

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

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


----------



## Circe (Feb 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Moderate to me doesn't mean strong opinions though.  Most people who claim to be moderates tend to be wishy washy and quite 'flexible' (i.e. opportunisiticly dishonest) in the stances they take on things.   What you guys (Underhill and Circe) are talking about is holding convictions about things that don't easily fit into the partisan mold.  That is a very different thing than being 'moderate' which is too often taking the side that is the most advantageous and not really giving a damn about whether it is the most defensable point of view.
> 
> If you mean you refuse to be identified as partisan, then I too am a moderate.  I get equally pissed at either side when I think they're wrong.   And I will defend the one who I think makes the most sense or who I think is being accused wrongly regardless of whether he or she has a "D" or "R" or "L" or "I" after his/her name.   I am non partisan though.  Not moderate.



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

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


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Moderate to me doesn't mean strong opinions though.  Most people who claim to be moderates tend to be wishy washy and quite 'flexible' (i.e. opportunisiticly dishonest) in the stances they take on things.   What you guys (Underhill and Circe) are talking about is holding convictions about things that don't easily fit into the partisan mold.  That is a very different thing than being 'moderate' which is too often taking the side that is the most advantageous and not really giving a damn about whether it is the most defensable point of view.
> 
> If you mean you refuse to be identified as partisan, then I too am a moderate.  I get equally pissed at either side when I think they're wrong.   And I will defend the one who I think makes the most sense or who I think is being accused wrongly regardless of whether he or she has a "D" or "R" or "L" or "I" after his/her name.   I am non partisan though.  Not moderate.



I think you have that backward.

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

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


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 5, 2013)

Si modo said:


> Some, in fact, many seem quite confused as to what DEBATE is.  I am going to draw on my semester taking part in it in school to provide a few principles.  I'm sure there are sources on the net for further study on the topic.
> 
> 1.  DEBATE involves critical thought.  Critical thought is basically healthy skepticism.  Question assumptions, question premises, question claims, question sources.  Use logic to make your arguments.  Avoid logical fallacies as they are errors in thought and reasoning; they are failures in arguments.
> 
> ...


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

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


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

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

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

So, what am I?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 5, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:
> 
> I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
> I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
> ...



A Ron Paul fan?


----------



## Circe (Feb 5, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:
> 
> I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
> I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
> ...



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


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 5, 2013)

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

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

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


----------



## Circe (Feb 15, 2013)

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

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


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 15, 2013)

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


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 15, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I really don't know what to call myself, you decide:
> 
> I am a fiscal conservative. I spend my money carefully and I expect the government to do the same.
> I am a moral liberal (also known as a government interference conservative). I believe that folks ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights and privilages of others or hurt anyone. I believe that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives.
> ...



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


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 15, 2013)

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


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 15, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


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



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


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre,
> ...



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


----------



## Circe (Feb 18, 2013)

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


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 18, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 18, 2013)

Circe said:


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



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


----------



## Amelia (Feb 18, 2013)

Circe said:


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




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


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 18, 2013)

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


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2013)

A bump.


----------

