• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debating with Style

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.

Furthermore, debate becomes part of society itself. The debates themselves are facts which people are motivated by, and those motivations will create behavior to be debated about.

Maybe I am not unpacking this right, but it seems circular.

What kind of debate are you talking about ?

There is the logical argument that you are trying to make.

There is the presentation of a position (that you may not even agree with) that will be judged.

There is the "appeal" to an audience by the shams we call Presidential Debates.
 
Furthermore, debate becomes part of society itself.

What are you talking about ?

The issue or the argument ? And how does that process take place ?

We don't debate health care in this country. We scream and yell at each other over it.

The debates themselves are facts which people are motivated by, and those motivations will create behavior to be debated about.

Hunh ?
 
What are you talking about ?

The issue or the argument ? And how does that process take place ?

We don't debate health care in this country. We scream and yell at each other over it.



Hunh ?
I have to admit, I'm not following either.
 
I have to admit, I'm not following either.

Thank you.

I know I am slow......but, sometimes I have to ask if my lack of understanding isn't because of a lack of clarity.
 
Maybe I am not unpacking this right, but it seems circular.

What kind of debate are you talking about ?

There is the logical argument that you are trying to make.

There is the presentation of a position (that you may not even agree with) that will be judged.

There is the "appeal" to an audience by the shams we call Presidential Debates.
I'm talking about debating in general, not presidential debates or what we do online here. You can be in your family, workplace, church, club, or what have you and just trying to figure out which among a bunch of options to pursue.

People often reject logical positions because they seem too good to be true, don't believe they'll be followed through upon, worry about the security of implementation, anticipate one side seems more persuasive than another because of rhetorical articulation, don't believe all the facts are being introduced, or get concerned about rules of engagement regarding interruptions (to prevent people from carrying on and on or getting too far off topic).
 
What are you talking about ?

The issue or the argument ? And how does that process take place ?

We don't debate health care in this country. We scream and yell at each other over it.



Hunh ?
I'm talking about how as time goes by, debaters develop reputations which the audience remembers and those debaters are interacted with in regular life. Debate becomes a sign of personality, and personalities are considered when figuring out interactions which are actual facts to be debated.
 
I'm talking about how as time goes by, debaters develop reputations which the audience remembers and those debaters are interacted with in regular life. Debate becomes a sign of personality, and personalities are considered when figuring out interactions which are actual facts to be debated.

An example would be very helpful.
 
An example would be very helpful.
It can be anything from what outfits to wear to what activities to do to what cuisine to eat to who should be in charge to who should take care of things to how things should get done.

People don't debate the big ticket items that much in real life. They debate the little things that matter when it comes to scheduling lifestyles together.
 
OMGosh.

I joined a thread in the politics section and got caught up in all the crap.

I wasted about two hours there.

I need to be caned.
 
Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I did it again.
 
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?
I've noticed that there are a few posters on these forums that are capable of having a civil and intelligent conversation with basically anyone, even members that I feel like are especially difficult to engage with. I've concluded that you only really need one person who is stubbornly level headed, respectful and reasonable in order for civil debate to exist. Those are the necessary ingredients, and looking at my past debates with other posters that have gone south, they went in a direction I didn't want in part because I failed in one of those things.
 
Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I did it again.
My friend, I did it too. At the point where I was about to post, "was that your entry for the asinine post of the day competition?" I realized that I would be wasting pixels. I truly hate it when I get drawn into that. So, I'm back here for a breather and boy does this feel better.
 
My friend, I did it too. At the point where I was about to post, "was that your entry for the asinine post of the day competition?" I realized that I would be wasting pixels. I truly hate it when I get drawn into that. So, I'm back here for a breather and boy does this feel better.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Yes, it feels good to say something like that, but it also sucks out your soul.

Still would have been fun to read....unless you said it to me. :p
 
Looking through some of the threads and grinding my teeth and I resist the urge to say something unChristian.

There is simply no debate involved.

They really do pretty all read the same.
 
This is from the Web. It is a definition of debate:

a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

I would add that the arguments take the form of a structure where they support a position that was defined at the start of the debate.

So if someone says, I challenge you to a debate.....

My position is that Nancy Pelosi is not a moron.

Your position is that Nancy Pelosi is a moron.

Now....the first issue becomes...what is the threshold for moronhood.

When is someone declared, officially, a moron.

That is a tough since calling someone a moron is generally an emotional response and based very deeply on a personal perspective.

I read an article that was hating on Ronald Reagan the other day.....I could not disagree with any of the points, but I could not agree with the terrible description of Reagan put forth that as the "conclusion" based on the things he'd done. All about perspective.....

Back to Nancy the moron/non-moron.

Point being that I think it's going to be next to impossible to get agreement on that threshold or standard.

So maybe the position is changed by agreement to:

Nancy is/was effective as a speaker vs. Nancy is/was not very effective as a speaker.

Here again, we have the dilema of what qualifies as effective. And most of the argument would be defining what she did and did not have control over as the speaker.

So, we try again......

Nancy Pelosi does not support the Constitution.....

Nancy Pelosi does support the Constitution......

This seems easier to me:

You have what she's written. You have what she's said. You know what bills she has sponsored and supported.

It is still challenging in that "what supports the constiutiton" is still not universally agreed upon (and the arguments/debate really may be more dedicated to that than Nancy Pelsoi).

None of that is addressed in the general politics forum or many other places.....

Take COVID for example:

Most threads start out.....

You stupid ##$$%^ $%^& !!!!@##$ antivaxers are such $%&@#.

Now lets talk about it.....

Or

You #@%^& Fascist mother$%$%^&#s are doing this and doing that......

I hope you die.........

Etc Etc Etc.

Just typing this, I really wish we had a regulated debate forum.

I am wondering if we could get temporary moderatorship over our own threads in a particular forums so that when the turddroppers show up, they get booted right out.
 
I read an article that was hating on Ronald Reagan the other day.....I could not disagree with any of the points, but I could not agree with the terrible description of Reagan put forth that as the "conclusion" based on the things he'd done. All about perspective.....
Did I write it? ;)
 
1644381747721.png

Stop me before I post in the political discussions forum again......!!!!!
 
We really do need some other, more highly moderated, forums.
 
Wasted 20 minutes reading through some threads in the political discussion section.

They all play out the same and nobody is sharing or saying anything worthwhile.
 
Well, you're not invited then, whatever you just said.
Yea, that was pure bullshit under a fake guise of what he believed was intelligence
It was not
 
Wasted 20 minutes reading through some threads in the political discussion section.

They all play out the same and nobody is sharing or saying anything worthwhile.
Then don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out
 
Then don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out
Are you trying to demonstrate the kind of discussion that is exactly the issue being discussed in this Loft thread? If so, you've hit the nail on the head.
 
I think we should form an honorable-poster cabal, friends.

I would agree....but I would not call it a cabal.

We need a few mods in there so we can have someone who will toss posts that don't belong.

Except this place does not seem to delete posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom