The point isn’t just the low quality of the analogy–the point is that, when its flaws were pointed out, jtgain just kept repeating it with no effort to address the critiques. jtgain was modded for repeated a poor argument without addressing the criticism of it. As a moderation plan, do you disapprove of that plan, going forward?
The problem is, i’ve since this happen hundreds of times on this message board.
I’ve had dozens of arguments where people ostensibly respond to my posts, and to the posts of other debaters, without in any way addressing the substance of the argument, and often by simply repeating points that have already been rebutted.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the moderating strategy taken by Jonathan Chance in this case, but if this is the new standard going forward for debate in GD, we’re gonna need a bigger boatload of mods.
No…but my suspicion is that other purveyors of poor argument will do likewise and NOT be sanctioned. In other words, I am skeptical that the moderation plan goinf forward will actually be executed.
But I DID address the criticism of the argument. One might disagree with my rebuttal, but it stands: marriage used to mean two opposite sex couples. It now means two people of any sex. Why can’t it be changed to mean three people of any sex? Or one person and any other object?
The objection was that contract law doesn’t allow anything but two consenting adults. Why can’t contract law be changed to allow a contract between one consenting adult and another object?
I’ll admit it is hyperbole, but that is a legitimate debating tactic. Should a conservative mod rule that any comparison of SSM to interracial marriage be off-limits because he rules it to be “invalid”? That almost illustrates my point in that thread. The comparisons are absurd.
Legitimate in that it should be allowed? Yes.
Legitimate in that it furthers debate, puts forth even an arguably coherent argument, and doesn’t make everyone who read it dumber? No.
It was “proven.” When in GD is an argument “proven”? Is it the position of this board that any comparison of SSM to marriage of inanimate objects is so outside the realm of debate that it is not allowed?
I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop when arguments against SSM are banned entirely.
I dunno, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to ask people to bring their A-game to Great Debates.
Debate is a time-honored thing. I mean real debate, not slapping other people with half-truths or outright lies or stuff you pull out of your a–. I mean your assumptions. I’d like to think we hold people to a higher standard, that you go into the forum ready to discuss and even argue ideas and beliefs with a sincere desire to really tackle these issues and not just jerk other people around with low-rate junk.
Or are we asking too much?
Well:
You tell me.
No one said you couldn’t debate it.
No one said you couldn’t be against it.
We would prefer it if you would come in with something real and not just some inane statement, come debate in good faith, that’s really not asking a lot.
Asking you not to continue throwing it out when you’ve been called on it, that’s not unreasonable neither. “Lather, rinse, repeat” is not a direction in Great Debates, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Just because you are agin’ it doesn’t make you on the side of the angels. Bring better argument.
ETA: This applies to everybody. Bring better argument. Don’t half-step.
No, come on, that can’t be how Great Debates works. How are you going to decide if people are “bringing their A game?” How will you decide if someone’s statement is just inane enough to warrant a moderator comment? To pose a simple hypothetical: how will you decide I’m bringing my A-game, or something less? Are you familiar with the intelligence of every poster, and how they should be posting?
It seems odd to me to characterize what appears to be a legitimate question as lather, rinse, repeat when, from a cursory read of this thread, the poster has only brought it up twice?
Also, I agree with Bricker. If jtagain’s post is unacceptable, Miller’s must be moderated as such as well.
Why can’t purple be changed to yellow? Why can’t gravity repel sound? And why, I ask, can’t the end of a book be its title?
Your “why can’t” question is equally sensible. Do you not know what a contract is? (And to forestall the obvious gotcha that’s coming up, if you suggest changing marriage to allow SSM is equivalent to changing the meaning of “contract” to something entirely different, you’re gonna embarrass yourself even more than you’ve already managed to do).
It’s entirely possible JC missed this “rebuttal” because it’s so willfully ignorant of what the word “contract” means. The only way your change could happen is by getting rid of the core meaning of the word, in the same way that we can only get gravity to repel sound by changing what the word “gravity” means to something completely different.
Wasn’t there four pages of this before the mod note? I would think that’s more than sufficient for anything.
And yes, cheap shots taken by anyone are generally not useful, or at least that’s what I think. That being said, we do have a long history of jokes, especially as threads grow longer/there’s more opportunity for zingers. To some extent that kind of thing is damn near a tradition for a lot of the board. Should it be discouraged in Great Debates? Probably. I realize it’s hard to resist going for the easy get like that and no doubt more so as threads build.
This is also what makes demolishing bad argument so irresistible as well; it gives a feeling of DOING something, striking a blow against ignorance. But mostly it just makes people feel good at the expense of actual discourse and debate. Nothing real gets happening and that’s unfortunate.
So comparing the anti-SSM side to racists and nazis is okay, but a poorly constructed argument on our side or not bringing our “A game” gets a mod note. Strange moderation this is.
Do you not know what marriage is?
In fairness, that wasn’t an analogy.
I do know you’re not going to open up a second front for your argument in this thread or this forum. Not the place for it.
Take it elsewhere.
I’ll admit that I don’t want the mods to shut you down because I find you hilarious.
If you’re going to take potshots at one another I’ll close THIS thread down. Be better in here for sure.
Who compared you to Nazis?
And while you’re shut down again here, I think we can talk about the form of the argument: when you quote me and respond with exactly the point I thought you’d respond with and already rebutted, and you make no acknowledgement of that rebuttal, that’s not productive conversation. That’s the kind of thing that deserves to get shut down.
Note: I’m trying here not to do anything further to address the quality of the analogy, simply to discuss the format of the discussion. If that’s not okay, I’ll bow out.
More absurd hyperbole doesn’t exactly provide an argument for previous absurd hyperbole.