• 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!

Heated political debates vs Hyperventilating

Do you prefer hyperventilating in a debate or enjoy a good ole fashion debate sans hyperventilating

  • 1. Sorry, but the other side just p's me off so I need to hyperventilate

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • 2. I prefer a heated debate where I can keep calm

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • 3. I wish we could have more civil debates

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • 4. I never hyperventilate, how dare ANYONE suggest that!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5. What's the difference between a heated debate and hyperventilating?

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • 6. The theme of this thread is making me hyperventilate, otherwise I never do

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • 7. Other opinions on the nature of heated debates vs hyperventilating

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Total voters
    19
reflechissez said:
That's not all you said. And why do you try to hide your posting history?
Click to expand...
Here are my exact words

"It has been ten years since I last posted.

Just saying hello again."



Please explain how that is trolling
 
Has anyone considered maybe the problem lies in the very structure of debate itself? When people are placed in a win/lose situation the stakes get higher. In dialogue or dialectics and discussions, there is less to lose.
 
bomberfox said:
Has anyone considered maybe the problem lies in the very structure of debate itself? When people are placed in a win/lose situation the stakes get higher. In dialogue or dialectics and discussions, there is less to lose.
Click to expand...
Real debates aren't about win/lose but then again, online debating isn't real debating.
As for the stakes being higher for those who react by hyperventilating, the stakes wouldn't be so high if the fragile egos of those on the Right finally accepted that we on the Left are wiser, more open-minded, kinder, less bigoted, more willing to accept facts and science, and are just generally better people. 😇
 
Artymoon said:
All you have to do is look at the new threads page, from the incendiary titles to the first page comments. Hyperventilating is strong in this community.
Click to expand...
Hello on any political forum the headlines for subject matters are almost always incendiary as you call them. Its a debating forum. People come on here to debate and since many have never trained to debate, they in f act state a subjective opinion of their partisan bias with no objective basis for their arguments. Most of that is because of people not being trained in school to debate. Many really believe their subjective opinion expressing their partisan bias is sufficient, certainly most Magas and then many who counter respond.

I am not sure what you expected or would expect on such forums.

Lol if you want here are two sources I used to provide students when I taught them to debate:



I myself was taught the Oxford Union Society rules for debating. Those were used by my favourie debater William F. Buckley when he engaged in his famous debate with James Baldwin.

I am a Canadian so we learn the Oxford Union rules and for that matter how Oxford does its footnotes and writing.

We try ignore and avoid what you Americans have done to the English language.

Other than William F. Buckley and probably Gore Vidal, Truman Capote, I am not sure if there were or are any other Americans who understand such rules. This is not to be confused with skilled orators like Martin Luther King or Barak Obama or Thomas Jefferson or my favourite orator, the adhd Theodore Roosevelt.

That said if you want to encourage people to debate with decorum on this board good luck and phack you. No I was joking on that last phack you.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Real debates aren't about win/lose but then again, online debating isn't real debating.
As for the stakes being higher for those who react by hyperventilating, the stakes wouldn't be so high if the fragile egos of those on the Right finally accepted that we on the Left are wiser, more open-minded, kinder, less bigoted, more willing to accept facts and science, and are just generally better people. 😇
Click to expand...
Actually debates are about WHO is right and WHO is wrong. That creates the scenario. Discussions are about WHAT. There are very very few people who are 100% left or right.
 
bomberfox said:
Has anyone considered maybe the problem lies in the very structure of debate itself? When people are placed in a win/lose situation the stakes get higher. In dialogue or dialectics and discussions, there is less to lose.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment and I would say no. If one debates following proper decorum the structure prevents this win lose or lose win kind of predicament you point out.

Here is the Oxford Union Debating protocol.

Formal Debates

The Oxford Union Society Formal Debates
oxford-union.org oxford-union.org

You want to have some fun Bomber go back and watch some old Firing Line debates with William F. Buckley and his opponents. That is the best way I can explain it. Now it sounds like both sides or Buckley are arguing win lose lose win but they are not. In fact the structure they use recognizes each side has valid points and the validity depends on how they use objective evidence to back up their positions. It does allow emotion if its done without profanity or insult. It also has no problem with biases or subjective opinions as long as the speaker acknolwedges their emotions and subjective opinions in a candid manner and does not present them as anything but that,.

In a nutshell Ihink you are dead on but only because people have not been trained in public speaking so do not know any better. In fact having had to be a trial lawyer for awhile I must tell you contrary to believe many law schools did not sufficiently train law students in public speaking and the procedures you see at trials try to follow the same rules albeit with formal procedures for admission of evidence.

Me I was born talking. I came out was slapped on the ass and started arguing with everyone and have never shut up. I did teach negotiations at 3 universities to law students and MBA students so I think you areexactly right and we had to explain a debate or negotiations can be win lose, lose win, unless we understand this transactional analysis and teach people to see things as lose lose or win win. Compromise and mutual agreement is the real lesson to learn from debate not an in your face victory.

Lol with the Trump infection all over the US, I am afraid that combined with the sheer failure of your education system to teach people to read, write, listen, engage in critical and creative thinking, seeing many possible solutions not one absolute solution has long since been abandon.

Today your citizens have been brought up on a pablum of vomit placed on the internet that they swallow and obey and regurgitate,. Everything has one formula and a one size answer Thus Tump illiteracy and JD Vance who is a graduate of Yale Law School and can't utter a logical thought.

Obama did know how to formally debate with logic. Other than him, maybe Henry Kissinger. Reagan the supposed great communicator read scripts. His training as an actor made him sound great but he had no idea what he was reading out and this is why his last two years in office he was able to cover up his Alzheimer's with the help of his wife.

With No regard for their actual stances (a lot of people you hear doing terrible in debates actually do really well you are just hearing it from someone who hates them).

I think in terms of purely following formal debating skills as much as I hate Ted Cruz he can do it but for me Miutt Romney and Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell for Reps, Madeleine Albright, Eleanor Roosevelt Mario Cuomo for Dems, That is just me in pointing out they avoid slang, broken sentences and complete their positions with reasons. You could add Barry Goldwater.

However for Americans there is no equivalent to any British politician especially Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher or our Pierre Trudeau in Canada. (Obama and Lincoln yes)

William F. Buckley is the best. He is the Zeus of debaters. No one could speak like him except for me.

Now the exact anti-thesis to being able to debate and what I call only be able to politically fart today can be seen with:

Steven Miller, Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi, JD Vance, Lindsay Graham, Howard Lutnick Scott Besent, Madge Taylor Greene, and Trump. They are vivid examples of oral effluence.

They need mouth diapers.

Have an eloquent day.

Regards,
Mr. Snot
 
Mika-El said:
Interesting comment and I would say no. If one debates following proper decorum the structure prevents this win lose or lose win kind of predicament you point out.

Here is the Oxford Union Debating protocol.

Formal Debates

The Oxford Union Society Formal Debates
oxford-union.org oxford-union.org

You want to have some fun Bomber go back and watch some old Firing Line debates with William F. Buckley and his opponents. That is the best way I can explain it. Now it sounds like both sides or Buckley are arguing win lose lose win but they are not. In fact the structure they use recognizes each side has valid points and the validity depends on how they use objective evidence to back up their positions. It does allow emotion if its done without profanity or insult. It also has no problem with biases or subjective opinions as long as the speaker acknolwedges their emotions and subjective opinions in a candid manner and does not present them as anything but that,.

In a nutshell Ihink you are dead on but only because people have not been trained in public speaking so do not know any better. In fact having had to be a trial lawyer for awhile I must tell you contrary to believe many law schools did not sufficiently train law students in public speaking and the procedures you see at trials try to follow the same rules albeit with formal procedures for admission of evidence.

Me I was born talking. I came out was slapped on the ass and started arguing with everyone and have never shut up. I did teach negotiations at 3 universities to law students and MBA students so I think you areexactly right and we had to explain a debate or negotiations can be win lose, lose win, unless we understand this transactional analysis and teach people to see things as lose lose or win win. Compromise and mutual agreement is the real lesson to learn from debate not an in your face victory.

Lol with the Trump infection all over the US, I am afraid that combined with the sheer failure of your education system to teach people to read, write, listen, engage in critical and creative thinking, seeing many possible solutions not one absolute solution has long since been abandon.

Today your citizens have been brought up on a pablum of vomit placed on the internet that they swallow and obey and regurgitate,. Everything has one formula and a one size answer Thus Tump illiteracy and JD Vance who is a graduate of Yale Law School and can't utter a logical thought.

Obama did know how to formally debate with logic. Other than him, maybe Henry Kissinger. Reagan the supposed great communicator read scripts. His training as an actor made him sound great but he had no idea what he was reading out and this is why his last two years in office he was able to cover up his Alzheimer's with the help of his wife.

With No regard for their actual stances (a lot of people you hear doing terrible in debates actually do really well you are just hearing it from someone who hates them).

I think in terms of purely following formal debating skills as much as I hate Ted Cruz he can do it but for me Miutt Romney and Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell for Reps, Madeleine Albright, Eleanor Roosevelt Mario Cuomo for Dems, That is just me in pointing out they avoid slang, broken sentences and complete their positions with reasons. You could add Barry Goldwater.

However for Americans there is no equivalent to any British politician especially Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher or our Pierre Trudeau in Canada. (Obama and Lincoln yes)

William F. Buckley is the best. He is the Zeus of debaters. No one could speak like him except for me.

Now the exact anti-thesis to being able to debate and what I call only be able to politically fart today can be seen with:

Steven Miller, Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi, JD Vance, Lindsay Graham, Howard Lutnick Scott Besent, Madge Taylor Greene, and Trump. They are vivid examples of oral effluence.

They need mouth diapers.

Have an eloquent day.

Regards,
Mr. Snot
Click to expand...
Mitt Romney could debate well though i would consider Ted Cruiz to be rather bad at debating precisely because he was taught to memorize and be proud he could recite the entire constitution but he really doesnt understand much more than rote memorization and Thatcher was a better orator than debater. I agree otherwise. Im not an expert on debating either.
 
Gardener said:
Here is the actual thread I referenced.

Gardener

Thread '10 years'

It has been ten years since I last posted.

Just saying hello again.
  • Like




If you are capable of honesty, now would be a good time to apply some.
Click to expand...
Oh I read it, my good friend. You came barreling in being as nasty as you are being now. And the quality of your emails has not improved. 80% of what you post is not about the topic of the thread. It's boring. You don't need to respond to this post.
 
Last edited:
reflechissez said:
Oh I read it, my good friend. You came barreling in being as nasty as you are being now. And the quality of your emails has not improved. 80% of what you post is not about the topic of the thread. It's boring. You don't need to respond to this post.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are not capable of being even remotely honest.

It seems to come with the territory, here.
 
Gardener said:
Yes, you are not capable of being even remotely honest.

It seems to come with the territory, here.
Click to expand...
Damn, I have heard some defensive whining on here over the years, but you have made it a fine art.
 
Gardener said:
Yes, you are not capable of being even remotely honest.

It seems to come with the territory, here.
Click to expand...



......from a TRUMP supporter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:ROFLMAO: :LOL::):ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:


Truth? That's a candy bar, or did you say "Ruth"?


Donald J. Trump told over 1500 lives in his first campaign !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Fearandloathing said:
......from a TRUMP supporter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:ROFLMAO: :LOL::):ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:


Truth? That's a candy bar, or did you say "Ruth"?


Donald J. Trump told over 1500 lives in his first campaign !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I have never voted for Trump.
 
Hey, so hyperventilation, or breathing too fast, can make you feel dizzy and lightheaded. But don’t worry, there’s a simple fix! Just take a deep, slow breath, hold it for a bit, and then slowly exhale. Count to ten and repeat if needed. Now you’re all set to dive back into the debate!
 
roberthughey said:
The "Hall of Mirrors".
Click to expand...

On most threads, he ignores the subject matter and complains or predicts how those horrible "righties" will post on the thread topic. So yeah, "The Hall of Mirrors" is right on point.
This thread premise is quite hilarious considering who made it. :LOL:
 
trixare4kids said:
On most threads, he ignores the subject matter and complains or predicts how those horrible "righties" will post on the thread topic. So yeah, "The Hall of Mirrors" is right on point.
This thread premise is quite hilarious considering who made it. :LOL:
Click to expand...

We need to start giving out bags - big ones.
 
Artymoon said:
All you have to do is look at the new threads page, from the incendiary titles to the first page comments. Hyperventilating is strong in this community.
Click to expand...

This isn't a serious debate site. Even the political debates on social media are better than this. The site owners need to do some serious reform work on the kinds of shit talking that pass for "discourse" here. You can consistently flame-bait someone all day long and not get dinged for it as long as it's implicit only, as soon as you use an explicit insult you get dinged. It's adolescent.

This site's idea of decorum and the way it divides up the site according to the kinds of ways people talk is hilariously bad planning. Shit, even some reddit pages do it better than this.

Most of the threads here are dogpiled by the same roving groups of partisans who are there to smear, divide and conquer. I wouldn't be surprised if there are paid provocateurs on this site from political institutions in the US. I'd rather believe that than believe some people are so low IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom