Conservative (or Liberal, or any other) Only debates...

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just noticed a post in the "Conservative Only Debate" category (about Trump but who cares about that). Just wanted to say something about that:

I would never ask nor answer a question in a "Conservative only debate" (or a "Liberal only debate" either). Restricting dialogue to only people who already agree with you is about as boring a thing as I can imagine, and a sure-fire way to make certain that you never discover anything new.

Reminds me of the wicked queen in Snow White asking a mirror who's the fairest. My mirror is the least likely to give me a useful answer to anything I might want to know.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a way to complain about or bash another group without objection.

 

[Sunstone]

Restricting dialogue to only people who already agree with you is...a sure-fire way to make certain that you never discover anything new.
.

Oh, quit being naive. Maybe on paper you have a point but you are talking theory. The truth is you have been on this Forum way too long to be hopelessly delusional about how things work in reality.

The fact is that open debates can -- and routinely do -- reduce the discussion to the lowest sticking point. It goes like this:

CAPITALIST: Let's talk about how capitalism drives innovation.

SOCIALIST: No way! I want to talk about how capitalism exploits workers.

So they end up debating how capitalism exploits workers and nothing much more is said about how capitalism drives innovation.​

Again....

CHRISTIAN: Let's talk about how God is Love.

ATHEIST: You got to be kidding me. You have not even proved that God exists. You need to prove that first!

So they end up debating whether God exists or not.​

Again...

REPUBLICAN: Trump needs to appoint right-to-life judges to the Supreme Court.

DEMOCRAT: WTF? Trump is the most crooked president we've ever had.

So they end up debating Trump's business dealings or some such thing.​

The purpose of protected forums is so people can get past the lowest sticking point. If you don't know that by now, you have not been paying attention.


By the way. If you see someone using such a forum to bash their opponents, then don't whine about it -- report them. That's a violation of the rules. If you haven't been reporting them for doing it, then you have no right to complain about it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh, quit being naive. Maybe on paper you have a point but you are talking theory. The truth is you have been on this Forum way too long to be hopelessly delusional about how things work in reality.

The fact is that open debates can -- and routinely do -- reduce the discussion to the lowest sticking point. It goes like this:

CAPITALIST: Let's talk about how capitalism drives innovation.

SOCIALIST: No way! I want to talk about how capitalism exploits workers.

So they end up debating how capitalism exploits workers and nothing much more is said about how capitalism drives innovation.​

Again....

CHRISTIAN: Let's talk about how God is Love.

ATHEIST: You got to be kidding me. You have not even proved that God exists. You need to prove that first!

So they end up debating whether God exists or not.​

Again...

REPUBLICAN: Trump needs to appoint right-to-life judges to the Supreme Court.

DEMOCRAT: WTF? Trump is the most crooked president we've ever had.

So they end up debating Trump's business dealings or some such thing.​

The purpose of protected forums is so people can get past the lowest sticking point. If you don't know that by now, you have not been paying attention.


By the way. If you see someone using such a forum to bash their opponents, then don't whine about it -- report them. That's a violation of the rules. If you haven't been reporting them for doing it, then you have no right to complain about it.

In the last forum that I posted on (years ago), I actually instituted a "formal debate" section. It essentially went like this:

1. Someone would propose a topic for formal debate,
2. Someone else would (hopefully) agree to the debate, and choose a side (pro or con),
3. Another member would agree to moderate,
4. The parties would agree to a number of rules (length of posts, how many rounds, etc., whether each round answered the previous or could introduce new material, etc.)
5. Two threads were set up -- one for the debate, in which only the debaters and the moderator could participate, and another, called "the bleachers," in which other members could comment however they liked.

Actually had some very, very good debates -- disciplining your mind to follow some rules can be a very good aid to focus.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the last forum that I posted on (years ago), I actually instituted a "formal debate" section. It essentially went like this:

1. Someone would propose a topic for formal debate,
2. Someone else would (hopefully) agree to the debate, and choose a side (pro or con),
3. Another member would agree to moderate,
4. The parties would agree to a number of rules (length of posts, how many rounds, etc., whether each round answered the previous or could introduce new material, etc.)
5. Two threads were set up -- one for the debate, in which only the debaters and the moderator could participate, and another, called "the bleachers," in which other members could comment however they liked.

Actually had some very, very good debates -- disciplining your mind to follow some rules can be a very good aid to focus.

Whilst not commonly done, forums exist your that purpose here, too.

 

[sun rise]

Whilst not commonly done, forums exist your that purpose here, too.

Yes, under "One-on-One Debates" there's the possibility of "team" and "Invitation Only" debates as well as true one-on-one.

 

[Heyo]

I would never ask nor answer a question in a "Conservative only debate" (or a "Liberal only debate" either). Restricting dialogue to only people who already agree with you is about as boring a thing as I can imagine, and a sure-fire way to make certain that you never discover anything new.

A DIR or "X only" forum is like a primary. You can discuss the finer issues without constant attack from the opposition. You can bring up contrary points without being labeled as a traitor or the opposition jumping in on the action. You are confident that you are surrounded with good faith actors who are interested in a productive discussion.
When you have done your internal discussion (primary) and have a strategy, you go up against the opposition. (Post the same question in an open forum).

 

[joe1776]

Just noticed a post in the "Conservative Only Debate" category (about Trump but who cares about that). Just wanted to say something about that:

I would never ask nor answer a question in a "Conservative only debate" (or a "Liberal only debate" either). Restricting dialogue to only people who already agree with you is about as boring a thing as I can imagine, and a sure-fire way to make certain that you never discover anything new.

Reminds me of the wicked queen in Snow White asking a mirror who's the fairest. My mirror is the least likely to give me a useful answer to anything I might want to know.

I agree with you in that I have no interest in posting to such a closed forum. Debate offers the challenge that brings me here. I don't care to hear arguments that only preach to the choir.

On the other hand, skipping such a forum is no more trouble for me than skipping threads that are of no interest. If other members find them useful, I'm happy for them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Just noticed a post in the "Conservative Only Debate" category (about Trump but who cares about that). Just wanted to say something about that:

I would never ask nor answer a question in a "Conservative only debate" (or a "Liberal only debate" either). Restricting dialogue to only people who already agree with you is about as boring a thing as I can imagine, and a sure-fire way to make certain that you never discover anything new.

Reminds me of the wicked queen in Snow White asking a mirror who's the fairest. My mirror is the least likely to give me a useful answer to anything I might want to know.

Plenty of conservatives don't like trump. Yes, echo chambers should be avoided, but restricting sub fora to pertinent interest groups is ok.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A DIR or "X only" forum is like a primary. You can discuss the finer issues without constant attack from the opposition. You can bring up contrary points without being labeled as a traitor or the opposition jumping in on the action. You are confident that you are surrounded with good faith actors who are interested in a productive discussion.
When you have done your internal discussion (primary) and have a strategy, you go up against the opposition. (Post the same question in an open forum).

Plenty of people in sub groups (both liberal AND conservative, for example) will happily attack their own as traitors if they're not in ideological lockstep. You should hear some of the stuff I get as a trump opposed conservative.

 

[joe1776]

The fact is that open debates can -- and routinely do -- reduce the discussion to the lowest sticking point.

I haven't noticed that. I have noticed that posters often don't actually make arguments that would persuade unbiased minds. They state opinions unsupported by reasons. If they're not challenged, they don't have to actually think about their position.

 

[Sunstone]

I haven't noticed that.

In every crowd, there's always at least one guy. You've been on this Forum how many years? Three? And you pretend you still haven't noticed someone starting a thread about God -- and then six atheists like me immediately jump down his throat demanding he first prove God exists before he gets to discuss his real point? Come on, Joe. Who do you think you're fooling? Not even Trump is THAT clueless.

 

[Heyo]

Plenty of people in sub groups (both liberal AND conservative, for example) will happily attack their own as traitors if they're not in ideological lockstep. You should hear some of the stuff I get as a trump opposed conservative.

And here I thought that was only for public display. I haven't participated much in closed discussions online but I have noticed that it is much easier to address problems within a closed group. You just don't discuss family problems with outsiders.

 

[HonestJoe]

The fact is that open debates can -- and routinely do -- reduce the discussion to the lowest sticking point.

Do discussions limited to some (often poorly) defined subset of people prevent that? There can be wide ranges of beliefs and opinions within those nominal groups and so plenty of disagreement, including all the poorly presented disagreement and general trolling.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Whilst not commonly done, forums exist your that purpose here, too.

They weren't all that common on my other forum, either. Mostly just me, with the few who were willing to do the work. It takes some discipline and effort, which most people aren't into.

I used to try to loosen it up a bit by allowing a lag of up to 72 hours between posts. That took a bit of the pressure off. Although it made for a lengthy debate, if we were allowing more than just a few rounds!

 

[joe1776]

In every crowd, there's always at least one guy. You've been on this Forum how many years? Three? And you pretend you still haven't noticed someone starting a thread about God -- and then six atheists like me immediately jump down his throat demanding he first prove God exists before he gets to discuss his real point? Come on, Joe. Who do you think you're fooling? Not even Trump is THAT clueless.

Your post was a personal insult. I've seen a lot of that in this forum. It happens when posters get frustrated with me but are unable to make a cool, logical response that would persuade unbiased minds of their position.

In this case, you don't have a logical argument to make because your premise is based on a personal observation which easily could be biased. Maybe your observation is correct. I don't know or care. However, your trying to bully me into acceptance of your position is amusing.

 

[Sunstone]

Your post was a personal insult. I've seen a lot of that in this forum. It happens when posters get frustrated with me but are unable to make a cool, logical response that would persuade unbiased minds of their position.

In this case, you don't have a logical argument to make because your premise is based on a personal observation which easily could be biased. Maybe your observation is correct. I don't know or care. However, your trying to bully me into acceptance of your position is amusing.

And your pretending that you have not noticed how debates sink to the lowest sticking point despite being on this Forum for three years is beyond amusing. It strikes me as disingenuous (as does your alleged outrage).

 

[Revoltingest]

They weren't all that common on my other forum, either. Mostly just me, with the few who were willing to do the work. It takes some discipline and effort, which most people aren't into.

I used to try to loosen it up a bit by allowing a lag of up to 72 hours between posts. That took a bit of the pressure off. Although it made for a lengthy debate, if we were allowing more than just a few rounds!

There are several "only" forums I'm able to post in.
They're very seldom interesting.

Hmmm.....
Ya know what might be really useful?
A "Civil Only" forum for any topic.
Imagine a strict prohibition of insulting each other....no
name calling, no insults, no comparison to YECs, etc.
It would take some discipline to remain in it....some
habits to break, but it could be interesting & peaceful.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are several "only" forums I'm able to post in.
They're very seldom interesting.

Hmmm.....
Ya know what might be really useful?
A "Civil Only" forum for any topic.
Imagine a strict prohibition of insulting each other....no
name calling, no insults, no comparison to YECs, etc.
It would take some discipline to remain in it....some
habits to break, but it could be interesting & peaceful.

Hardest habit to break? "That's stupid."
How to break it? "Here are my reasons for thinking what you said is not quite accurate."

 

[joe1776]

And your pretending that you have not noticed how debates sink to the lowest sticking point despite being on this Forum for three years is beyond amusing. It strikes me as disingenuous (as does your alleged outrage).

I've been participating in forums like RF since 1998. That's 22 years. The discussion-debate characteristics of all forums have been very similar. In all that time, you are the first poster I've encountered to claim that open debates routinely reduce the discussion to the lowest sticking point.

There are two possibilities: You are either the most discerning forum member I've encountered in 22 years or you don't know what you're talking about. Since the odds heavily favor the latter, I think you're probably spouting nonsense.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain: Accusing me of pretense because I don't recognize the truth of your unsupported claim should tell unbiased readers more about your character than mine.