- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,776
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I have been a participant in political discussion boards for decades. Remember the election of 2000 and the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's intervention? How quaint those times seem. Remember when the sexual habits of a President seemed significant? Good times. Over the years, and perhaps it was the particular forums I participated in, I have watched as the "debating habits" of participants have degraded. Yes, "burns" and "put-downs" have always been a theme in debates, but they used to be done with far greater panache and erudition. The sharpest knives go in without being felt immediately. Facts used to matter. Wow, that takes me back! I actually remember when one would use logic to build an argument, provide citations to relevant material and conduct disagreements with respect and a presumption of sincerity. I used to do that too!
Now, it seems, I am too often drawn into "debates" that consist entirely of well-worn and canned position statements that are presented with no intent of persuasion, without consideration or even understanding; When a well-developed rationale is responded to with a "dismissed" or less-polite versions of "Jane, you ignorant slut!"; "Labels" are de rigueur in lieu of specifics or actual responses, with the expectation that the recipient, not being one of "us", is assumed to be one of "them" and not deserving of consideration. Worse, I am prompted to respond in kind!
My question is: am I alone in this feeling? Is my desire for debate with substance and respect just a quaint notion from a bygone era? Is self-deprecation or even self-consciousness passe? Is nuance dead? Is it possible, in this day and age, to carry on a reasoned debate with an honest and respectful opponent, or is this just wishful thinking?
Amen, brother.You got spoiled by another forum and its higher standards.
Brings me back to my very first post here all the way back in 2017. Trump had been elected. I was a newly politically motivated teenager excited to discuss the issues and combat conservative ideas out in the "real" world.If providing facts and logic was more effective, the world would be a much different place.
First off...what even happened to this thread? I was trying to start a scientific discussion, did anyone even READ the article?
While as you know I very much enjoy discussions between two good faith parties. Many of my favorite thread are your discussing fascism. I very much enjoyed my thread discussing the definition of communism and capitalism. However, I think you underestimate how effective a debate tactic the appearance of "destroying" your opponent is.My question is: am I alone in this feeling? Is my desire for debate with substance and respect just a quaint notion from a bygone era? Is self-deprecation or even self-consciousness passe? Is nuance dead? Is it possible, in this day and age, to carry on a reasoned debate with an honest and respectful opponent, or is this just wishful thinking?
Using the Socratic method to draw people into making dumb arguments then making fun of that position is probably one of the strongest methods appearing to win an argument to an audience.Explain why homosexuality is immoral and depraved, please. I must be too stupid to figure it out on my own.
I don't find fault in your presentation. I have found that the most difficult aspect of "debate" forums is finding "two good faith parties". More frequently, I find a few good(ish) faith parties, and a plethora of bad faith interlopers.While as you know I very much enjoy discussions between two good faith parties. Many of my favorite thread are your discussing fascism. I very much enjoyed my thread discussing the definition of communism and capitalism. However, I think you underestimate how effective a debate tactic the appearance of "destroying" your opponent is.
When you are debating someone, not having a discussion...debating, you will almost never change their mind. They are too invested personally in the argument with you. You can change the mind of the "spectators" who won't look or feel silly or weak by changing their view because they don't have to admit they are wrong mid debate. Your goal really is to make your opponent look as silly as possible in an environment like that. Ben Shapiro pulled so many people over to the right, not because his arguments were better, but because he made his opponents look foolish.
I think using "debate tactics" is an overlooked strategy on the left.
Using the Socratic method to draw people into making dumb arguments then making fun of that position is probably one of the strongest methods appearing to win an argument to an audience.
I don't think there is anything wrong with insults either, but you have to make sure the person you are debating has made themselves deserving of it to a reasonable onlooker. For example, I personally believe this post came off as a very effective rebuttal despite, and arguably because of my flaboyent language.
Rereading your post, I think my response rather missed the mark at addressing the main crux of the point you were making.I don't find fault in your presentation. I have found that the most difficult aspect of "debate" forums is finding "two good faith parties".
My hope, always, is to change minds toward my way of thinking - if only incrementally. I am also always open to changing my mind, and have done so repeatedly - and inconsistently.
Guns are an issue I've especially done a 180 on, as I used to be very anti-gun across the board. I can only think of one instance where I've drastically changed my opinion from an interaction on this forum, and it was when it was very clearly demonstrated to me that current inflation was not in fact caused by "printing money".And with additional information, my opinions can be changed. I am, at present, adjusting my views on COVID, for example, and I have modified my views on gun control in many aspects.
Perhaps on certain issues? While anecdotal, I consider myself "an extreme left anarchist communist", and I doubt many leftists would take issue with your views and dissection of fascism for example.One of the problems I often run into is that my views are fairly central, and those on either extreme find them anathema.
Maybe I'm too young to have perspective on this. I feel like things got worse after 2016 and Trump in terms of political discussion in the US, but I always had the sense that online discussion at least was always in a similar state as to what it is now.But I have also found that the "median" and "mode" of conversations has become wildly disparate, and therein lies most of the friction.
Something I've been thinking about for a while is trying to pick arguments with liberals instead of conservatives. My natural pull is to dive into the threads with the people who I disagree with most, but I don't think that's where the most productive discussions happen.I have found that the most difficult aspect of "debate" forums is finding "two good faith parties".
I agree. What is "considered" centrist, though, has changed substantially in my lifetime (which is a bit longer than yoursI, personally, do not think that simply considering both sides before arriving at an conclusion makes ones views centrist.
You are not wrong, at all. Things are markedly worse after 2016. It, however, has been a process over decades that led to Trump and Trumpism. I began my personal online/discussion board journey during the 2000 election. That was an eye-opener to me. I was appalled at the vitriol that was considered "okay" even then. But, in retrospect, that was mild in comparison to what is allowed now. Yes, the "commie-pinko" tropes have been around for nearly a century, preceding even the Second World War, but now that is a minor (yet still comic) sleight - it's merely a starting point for the kinds of attacks that seem commonplace now.Maybe I'm too young to have perspective on this. I feel like things got worse after 2016 and Trump in terms of political discussion in the US, but I always had the sense that online discussion at least was always in a similar state as to what it is now.
Facts used to matter.
Now, it seems, I am too often drawn into "debates" that consist entirely of well-worn and canned position statements that are presented with no intent of persuasion, without consideration or even understanding;
Most people just wanna be cheerleaders for a team. They're not intellectuals.
A multi-media presentation! I love alternative styles, personally, and a lot of information can be conveyed that way.don't know if others consider employing mashup graphic images "style" BUT since a picture can be worth thousands of words, here is how I see things WRT a complex interconnected issue I've been interested in for decades,... specifically "the science of man made climate change" vs "the role of economics and monetary systems"
yup,... seems most people are no smarter than 5th graders (watch YouTube video about psychology experiment)
You mentioned logic in a debate. I often find myself wondering what people are debating when I start reading threads.
To be fair, empiricism lends itself to sensationalism. You can't expect a debate based around facts to last since the very first fact in any debate is what people say.
If you want to grab attention with facts, then say something witty that's instantaneously gratifying.
A multi-media presentation! I love alternative styles, personally, and a lot of information can be conveyed that way.
It's funny, because the right argues much the opposite. What is considered "center" at any point in time is very subjective under the best circumstances.My views are now deemed "left of center" (by partisans) not because they have migrated, but because what is considered the "center" has migrated so far to the right.
Again, I would reiterate what I said above.That migration is not within the population, however, but among partisans and the pundit class.
The country, I would argue, it hasn't really moved right at all. See this:
History rhymes.Because Roosevelt was pushing quickly, and had offhandedly mentioned the potential of comprehensive health care, Americans grew concerned. Their suspicions were fanned by the GOP and private medical lobbies like the American Health Association, which accused FDR of socialist conspiracy and government overreach. (Source)
Well...I don't disagree with any of that.Most Americans, for example, are vaccinated; vast majorities believe in climate change ("Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate"; and that racial disparities exists ("Majorities across racial and ethnic groups say being white helps one’s ability to get ahead, though Asians (73%), blacks (69%) and Hispanics (61%) are more likely than whites (56%) to say this.") On issue after issue after issue the bulk of Americans are "left of center", but Congress and the courts skew radically right. They no longer represent "most Americans" - and it is not even close.
I would argue the real catalyst for Trumpism was Sarah Palin.Things are markedly worse after 2016. It, however, has been a process over decades that led to Trump and Trumpism.
Out of curiosity, what was the vitriol that was ok then, but is considered mild now?That was an eye-opener to me. I was appalled at the vitriol that was considered "okay" even then. But, in retrospect, that was mild in comparison to what is allowed now.
To be fair, empiricism lends itself to sensationalism. You can't expect a debate based around facts to last since the very first fact in any debate is what people say.
If you want to grab attention with facts, then say something witty that's instantaneously gratifying.
The disputations forum has been closed.
the simple truth is students (i.e. people in general) are not taught how to think critically and prioritize threats (the exception being military personal, specifically pilots)
said another way military culture prepares their personal to face up to tough adversaries using intellectual framework like the OODA loop and "psychological training preparation"
as I see things the "military culture" approach is the only way it is possible to deal with a complex and intimidating issue such as manmade climate change because its basic human nature to bury one's head in the sand when confronted w/ a "yuge" problem
one thing I learned from various flight instructors is "situational awareness" and OODA analysis,... basically it is a thought process that was developed to keep USAF pilots alive AND understanding it is insurance of sorts from doing dumb things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
bottom line to solve a problem it first must be understood AND for a very complex issue such as "the science of man made climate change" vs "the role of economics and monetary systems" it requires "balls" AND "brains"
FYI WRT "psychological training preparation,..." military pilots have to under go SERE (SURVIVAL, EVASION, RESISTANCE and ESCAPE) school,... which is another thing few in the general public are taught (or are aware of),... actually was about 12 and a Boy Scout when I first learned the art of "wilderness survival"
the following is a link to a PDF version of "the US navy seal survival handbook"
http://glow420.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/the-u-s-navy-seal-survival-handbook.pdf
if ya look on p. 45 of the PDF it shows a photo of a SERE instructor w/ some boy scouts,... consider myself fortunate being introduced to wilderness survival skills as a kid,... also learned back then that to survive in the wilderness one also needs to toughen up mentally
...sad fact of the matter is too few in political office have the "balls" AND/OR "brains" to confront a complex issues that involve science or economics
basically the one talent politicians do have is "branding themselves" to some group of partisan supporters,... just saying it takes a keen eye to notice what is actually happening,... for example look at the following image using the concept of the OODA loop
No. It didn't seem to get much traffic, though, so maybe that's why.Do you know why ?
Judged debates don't really work. They just evoke a different sort of prejudice.
No. It didn't seem to get much traffic, though, so maybe that's why.
The mod responsibility for keeping out the uninvited is probably a big drawback. I've helped keep an arranged debate 'clean' on that board, and it was several hours of watching and reporting the violaters as soon as they trolled on. Of course, that board removes offending posts, which DP doesn't, so reading the debate here would be full of noise. Maybe not worth it.Thank you for that.
I might send an inquiry in asking if such a thing could be restored.
I like the loft as it pretty much keeps out the snarky comments and attacks.
But I think it was to be a little more casual.
Another board I participated on had what they called "The Clean Debate Zone". This is more self moderated.
They also have the "Bull Ring". This one was only supposed to be between the two debaters although it is violated to infinity.
I have been a participant in political discussion boards for decades. Remember the election of 2000 and the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's intervention? How quaint those times seem. Remember when the sexual habits of a President seemed significant? Good times. Over the years, and perhaps it was the particular forums I participated in, I have watched as the "debating habits" of participants have degraded. Yes, "burns" and "put-downs" have always been a theme in debates, but they used to be done with far greater panache and erudition. The sharpest knives go in without being felt immediately. Facts used to matter. Wow, that takes me back! I actually remember when one would use logic to build an argument, provide citations to relevant material and conduct disagreements with respect and a presumption of sincerity. I used to do that too!
Now, it seems, I am too often drawn into "debates" that consist entirely of well-worn and canned position statements that are presented with no intent of persuasion, without consideration or even understanding; When a well-developed rationale is responded to with a "dismissed" or less-polite versions of "Jane, you ignorant slut!"; "Labels" are de rigueur in lieu of specifics or actual responses, with the expectation that the recipient, not being one of "us", is assumed to be one of "them" and not deserving of consideration. Worse, I am prompted to respond in kind!
My question is: am I alone in this feeling?
Is my desire for debate with substance and respect just a quaint notion from a bygone era?
Is nuance dead?
Is it possible, in this day and age, to carry on a reasoned debate with an honest and respectful opponent, or is this just wishful thinking?
The mod responsibility for keeping out the uninvited is probably a big drawback. I've helped keep an arranged debate 'clean' on that board, and it was several hours of watching and reporting the violaters as soon as they trolled on. Of course, that board removes offending posts, which DP doesn't, so reading the debate here would be full of noise. Maybe not worth it.
It's not about appealing to you. Debate is about appealing to a general audience. Sensationalist rhetoric will get recorded and released which will grab other people's attention.I don't agree with this (as I understand it).
Can you give me a specific example of what you are talking about ?
Facts grab my attention by themselves. Saying something "witty" many times (especially on boards like these means some pithy insult thrown at your opponent).
Yea, but they're not really different.Not sure I agree.
Judging a debate is judging how well the point is made, not if the point is valid.
Everyone who goes to debate understands what it will be judged on.
As I was typing this, I wondered if YouTube had any college debates.
They do !!!!
I will look forward to watching them.
This one has Harvard Dems and Harvard Republicans debating. If I could find two hours to watch it I would.
I don't know; I don't hang in the Loft. They don't take them down anywhere else that I know of ( unless it's really really bad), so I'm just guessing they wouldn't.I did not realize they didn't take down "offending posts".
That would explain and support your response.
So, if I called someone an ugly name in the loft....they don't take it down ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?