Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[RKMBrown]

It is censorship only in that it limits the discussion to a specific top and gives the OP more power to prevent those who would almost certainly derail or suppress the discussion to do so. It seems to be people WANTING the power to censor here who seem to be the ones whining about the new forum.

I have seen no rule posted by anybody that prohibits or discourages disagreement with the OP. Only rules that prohibit people from derailing the thread or getting bogged down in definitions and semantics.

But I suspect that those doing the loudest complaining and whining are those who have a huge problem with me for whatever reason. And I suspect those doing the loudest complaining have me mostly in mind when they do it. At least I don't see them bitching about rules anybody else has posted.

So that's my dilemma. Do I let them win and withdraw from the forum altogether. In which I'm sure there will be a lot of glad handing and congratulations. And it would probably restore peace to the forum. Or stick to my guns and enjoy the potential the great new forum offers?

Decisions. . .decisions. . .

It is a conspiracy to lock you in the Lounge under their watchful eye and throw the key away ... Lolz!

Most of the folks crying have been here long enough and posted material that indicates they have more than two brain cells rubbing together.
To act like they don't understand the premise in order to caterwaul around saying it is censorship ... Is pretty funny if you ask me.

But hey ... If that is the definition they want to apply to it ... It is their thread and who am I to argue.
I think it is funny and has shown decent entertainment value already.

.

I like the format, but it does make me work harder at making my arguments. It's so much easier to just call someone a moron than to address why they are a moron in a formal way.

 

[BlackSand]

I like the format, but it does make me work harder at making my arguments. It's so much easier to just call someone a moron than to address why they are a moron in a formal way.

I like the new structure ... Foxfyre's thread forced me to think about what Democrats I thought were worth considering as President.
She didn't censor the responses ... Just kept reminding folks what the question was.

A few of us were able to catch on ... And I stumbled across some surprising information I would have never found otherwise.
It was interesting ... and enlightening.

Perhaps some people are just better than others at posing questions and managing the thread.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

In other words nobody is allowed to challenge the falsehoods of the OP and they must never be held accountable.

Why is the false definition exempt from being challenged?

Why should the person making the false definition not be held accountable?

Who would accept that happening to them in real life if they were falsely defined as being a criminal?

Why is that acceptable in USMB?

If you can find anywhere in this entire discussion or anywhere on USMB that I have EVER suggested that any topic cannot be challenged go for it. You'll be looking for a very long time, however.

My defining a word or term for purposes of debate, however, unless the topic is definitions, is not the topic. It is to enable the pros and cons of the topic to be discussed rather than getting bogged down in the definitions of the words. Coyote started a thread specifically to discuss the definitions or concepts of liberalism and conservatism. THAT is where the definitions are appropriately debated, and not on a thread devoted to a different subject.

If you don't like my definition of a word specified for purpose of the debate, and it is sufficiently offensive to you, then by all means don't participate in the thread. Or start you own thread to discuss why using a word in a certain way is offensive.

I see no reason why you or anybody else should have any more power to define a word than I or anybody else does.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is censorship only in that it limits the discussion to a specific top and gives the OP more power to prevent those who would almost certainly derail or suppress the discussion to do so. It seems to be people WANTING the power to censor here who seem to be the ones whining about the new forum.

I have seen no rule posted by anybody that prohibits or discourages disagreement with the OP. Only rules that prohibit people from derailing the thread or getting bogged down in definitions and semantics.

But I suspect that those doing the loudest complaining and whining are those who have a huge problem with me for whatever reason. And I suspect those doing the loudest complaining have me mostly in mind when they do it. At least I don't see them bitching about rules anybody else has posted.

So that's my dilemma. Do I let them win and withdraw from the forum altogether. In which I'm sure there will be a lot of glad handing and congratulations. And it would probably restore peace to the forum. Or stick to my guns and enjoy the potential the great new forum offers?

Decisions. . .decisions. . .

It is a conspiracy to lock you in the Lounge under their watchful eye and throw the key away ... Lolz!

Most of the folks crying have been here long enough and posted material that indicates they have more than two brain cells rubbing together.
To act like they don't understand the premise in order to caterwaul around saying it is censorship ... Is pretty funny if you ask me.

But hey ... If that is the definition they want to apply to it ... It is their thread and who am I to argue.
I think it is funny and has shown decent entertainment value already.

.

I like the format, but it does make me work harder at making my arguments. It's so much easier to just call someone a moron than to address why they are a moron in a formal way.

LOL. For sure having to make a counter argument does require a whole lot more work than whining about the other person's argument.

 

[Coyote]

The SDZ will become nothing more than a trolling and spamming forum for the OP.

Remember the religious guy who got banned?

SDZ will become a vacation spot for religious and anti-religious zealots, StormFront freaks, and so forth.

Not necessarily. SDZ is governed under Zone 2 rules. That means baiting/trolling/inflammatory/polorizing OP's can get and likely will be moved to the appropriate arena. Example, "feral negro" threads.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you can find anywhere in this entire discussion or anywhere on USMB that I have EVER suggested that any topic cannot be challenged go for it.

You mean where you objected to being challenged on your fallacious definition that liberalism is "statism"?

Post #184

Debate Now - Is Liberalism Exhausted Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That was way too easy!

Telling me to start a different thread because you refuse to held accountable for false and malicious mischaracterization of liberalism is most definitely a refusal on your part be challenged for your egregious posts.

If you demand the right, as you did in that post, to not be held accountable then you are de facto censoring the content of that thread.

That is unacceptable IMO.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The SDZ will become nothing more than a trolling and spamming forum for the OP.

Remember the religious guy who got banned?

SDZ will become a vacation spot for religious and anti-religious zealots, StormFront freaks, and so forth.

Not necessarily. SDZ is governed under Zone 2 rules. That means baiting/trolling/inflammatory/polorizing OP's can get and likely will be moved to the appropriate arena. Example, "feral negro" threads.

Excuse me while I choke down a laugh over that one... a very feral laugh!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your interpretation is incorrect.

My correction was not personal, only to your mistakes.

Only the OP in SDZ can make that call, not you.

Go back and read again.

If you have a question, ask the OP, DeRideo.

Your opinion of my post was that it was breathtaking in it's lack of sense and logic. You did not point out why you thought the post lacked sense or reason, nor did you provide any facts. IOW your post was a troll post nothing more.

The only opinion that counts is DeRideo's not yours.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your interpretation is incorrect.

My correction was not personal, only to your mistakes.

Only the OP in SDZ can make that call, not you.

Go back and read again.

If you have a question, ask the OP, DeRideo.

Your opinion of my post was that it was breathtaking in it's lack of sense and logic. You did not point out why you thought the post lacked sense or reason, nor did you provide any facts. IOW your post was a troll post nothing more.

The only opinion that counts is DeRideo's not yours.

Nonsense.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you can find anywhere in this entire discussion or anywhere on USMB that I have EVER suggested that any topic cannot be challenged go for it.

You mean where you objected to being challenged on your fallacious definition that liberalism is "statism"?

Post #184

Debate Now - Is Liberalism Exhausted Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

View attachment 37536


That was way too easy!

Telling me to start a different thread because you refuse to held accountable for false and malicious mischaracterization of liberalism is most definitely a refusal on your part be challenged for your egregious posts.

If you demand the right, as you did in that post, to not be held accountable then you are de facto censoring the content of that thread.

That is unacceptable IMO.

Nope. Just outlining the rules for the discussion as is intended in the structured debate zone. The topic was NOT the definition of liberalism and I made a very practical and perfectly legal choice to define the term so I would have some leverage to prevent anybody from trying to make it the topic. Every aspect of the actual topic was open for all points of view and nothing within the topic was off limits. No censorship whatsoever.

I think you must not understand the concept of structured debate. But if you object to the rules I post for discussion in my threads, then start your own threads or find somebody else's that interests you. You are under no obligation whatsoever to read or post in any of my threads or anybody else's threads.

But the general rules for the Structure Debate Zone gives me ability to set reasonable rules for conduct of members in the discussion. And you simply can't dictate to me what those rules can and can't be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, your comment is just that. You comment on definition of up and down concerning the rules of gravity is a perfect example of how that argument could fail. The OP can simply ban your argument as a derailing of the OP definition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberalism, by definition, is not statism.

Yet the OP can make it so by the OP's say so and derail any logical rebuttal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, your comment is just that. You comment on definition of up and down concerning the rules of gravity is a perfect example of how that argument could fail. The OP can simply ban your argument as a derailing of the OP definition.

Then he looses his "obvious" position in the OP. When the emperor has no clothes on... everyone knows it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, your comment is just that. You comment on definition of up and down concerning the rules of gravity is a perfect example of how that argument could fail. The OP can simply ban your argument as a derailing of the OP definition.

Then he looses his "obvious" position in the OP. When the emperor has no clothes on... everyone knows it.

Won't work that way, but . . . time will tell.

 

[Foxfyre]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

 

[Roadrunner]

Twerkers??? What's that?!?!?!

I don't know, but there is a group of dyslexic socialists with the motto "twerkers of the world untie!".

Perhaps you should ask them.

I think twerking is what Miley Cyrus does in short shorts.

I believe it involves shaking her ass until her brown eye pops out.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, your comment is just that. You comment on definition of up and down concerning the rules of gravity is a perfect example of how that argument could fail. The OP can simply ban your argument as a derailing of the OP definition.

Then he looses his "obvious" position in the OP. When the emperor has no clothes on... everyone knows it.

Won't work that way, but . . . time will tell.

Well some people will argue the emperor isn't naked, but really who are they fooling?

 

[Darkwind]

I think that the OP in this thread dislikes #6 because it prevents respondents from bringing specious tertiary issues to the topic. In other words, if they cannot derail the thread, they feel it is censorship.
...

This is My opinion. I think that the OP is just upset that he cannot call the people he disagrees with names.

Let me put it this way:

Say I start a topic and have these rules:
1. Those that agree with me will not have to verify their "facts."
2. Those that disagree with me must provide verification of their "facts."
3. I will have final say on whether the verification source is legitimate or not.

It's no more that a circlejerk/propaganda/troll thread disguised as legitimate debate.



Perhaps a uniform (and very specific) set of rules should be listed for the forum. The individual OPs could choose to omit one or more of the rules for their particular debate, but they couldn't invent new rules or redefine any existing rules.

If someone started a debate with that structure, I would pass on by and not abuse My time by trying to force My own rules into the thread.

 

[Darkwind]

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

In other words nobody is allowed to challenge the falsehoods of the OP and they must never be held accountable.

Why is the false definition exempt from being challenged?

Why should the person making the false definition not be held accountable?

Who would accept that happening to them in real life if they were falsely defined as being a criminal?

Why is that acceptable in USMB?

Here is the problem. What you are essentially arguing is that you do not want others to define the argument. A patently false definition would be obvious to everyone. However, simply because you disagree with a definition that fits the parameters of a dictionary or accepted usage inside a specific debate, does not immediately render the definition false.

Again, I find that people who simply have to define the debate on only their terms to be protesting simply because, again, it requries the participants to remained inside a fixed topic.

An example. I want to have a structured debate on securing the borders of the United States. To structure this debate, I would not allow tertiary concepts of racial motive to be part of the discussion. I would structure it in a way that the discussion would center around the means and economic hurdles.

This is how our legislation should be written. One issue and no riders, amendments, or bribes to be inserted. They are voting on the issue of securing the border and the means by doing so. This is an example as I would be much more formal in its outline.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that the OP in this thread dislikes #6 because it prevents respondents from bringing specious tertiary issues to the topic. In other words, if they cannot derail the thread, they feel it is censorship.
...

This is My opinion. I think that the OP is just upset that he cannot call the people he disagrees with names.

Let me put it this way:

Say I start a topic and have these rules:
1. Those that agree with me will not have to verify their "facts."
2. Those that disagree with me must provide verification of their "facts."
3. I will have final say on whether the verification source is legitimate or not.

It's no more that a circlejerk/propaganda/troll thread disguised as legitimate debate.



Perhaps a uniform (and very specific) set of rules should be listed for the forum. The individual OPs could choose to omit one or more of the rules for their particular debate, but they couldn't invent new rules or redefine any existing rules.

If someone started a debate with that structure, I would pass on by and not abuse My time by trying to force My own rules into the thread.

And that's the simple solution isn't it? If you don't like the rules established for a Structured Debate, then just don't participate in that thread. It really negates the whole concept of a structured debate if the critics can dictate to the thread author how the rules must be specified. You don't like the rules? Then don't participate. It really is that simple.