# Debate: How to, and the Rule Book **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079 "2001-11-07T23:44:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/21 "2001-11-08T16:03:14Z")
xeno: This is an interesting case. Elucidator posted: > [@](#): > > If. for whatever unforseeable reason, this should prove unnacceptable, my preferences in order would be Stoid, Xenophon, Collounsbury, Sua Sponte, Carrot Top, Big Bird, and Scylla Would you consider this to be an acceptable debating device? Personally, I **would** because it’s somewhat funny. Yet, clearly there’s a veiled insult in there (Apparently I’m less reasonable then Carrot top (I will however concede that Big Bird is more qualified for the role of impartial arbiter then myself, Big Bird having a 30+ year track record of admirable fairness and objectivity.) So, it looks to me like this call for an arbiter isn’t really serious on the face of it, but rather a mere rhetorical device used for the intention of getting a yuck and a cheap shot in at me. Beyond that, it seems to serve no purpose here. Is this a worthwhile device, or trickery deserving of a wedgie? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/22 "2001-11-08T16:35:29Z")
elucidator: You do raise an interesting point, though. Who is the pro-tem arbiter of acceptable debating tactics within the debate to decide what is acceptable? I would agree that an arbiter should be accepted for purposes of this debate. Looking at you preferences, I notice xenophon is high on the list. I would concur that this is a good choice, and second the idea on the grounds that this, after all, is Xeno’s thread, and that I believe he will do his best to act fairly and honorably in that role. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/23 "2001-11-08T17:15:34Z")
While **Big Bird** is an exemplary and accomplished diplomat, I hardly think he would be available even for every _semantic_ dispute, much less all possible rhetorical squabbles. And **Carrot Top** is far too busy inventing new ways to torture the innocent TV viewing public. My opinion, however, is that the prime arbiter in any unmoderated public debate is the public. We can consider the debates in this forum to be moderated to the extent that **Gaudere** and **David B** enforce the Prime Directive (DBAJ) and the general rules of forum content, but that is not the same as enforcing Rules o’ Debate. Only in the case of a structured debate with a set number of participants identified at the outset who recognize a person _not directly involved in the debate_ as an arbiter should that responsibility be given to an individual. This is an open forum; let’s let the general consensus arbitrate. Fortunately, we all have influence over _that_ abiter, limited only by the force of our arguments. That, IMO, is one advantage of a large pool of generally educated, generally well meaning participants. Quality tends to talk, while bullshit tends to walk. As far as semantics go, however, **elucidator** , I wonder why you are so antidictionary? Even for common words, if there is dispute or confusion regarding the usage of a word, certainly for the sake of clarity alone the intended definition should be specified. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/24 "2001-11-08T17:42:12Z")
The interesting case: an offer which may or may not have been serious, phrased so as to cast an implied slur on another poster. My position: I would examine the offer as if it were serious, question it on practical or philosophical grounds and judge the seriousness of the offer on the answers. If continuing specious proposals are offered, then I’d consider delivering a wedgie (once I had sufficient supporting reasons). ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/25 "2001-11-08T17:59:59Z")
Xeno: I concur largely with your position. Allow me another hypothetical based on this example. Assume that I as the target of the supposed slur chose to take umbrance at the remark (Being listed beneath Carrot Top is after all an egregious insult,) rather than accept the mild slur for it’s humor value. Is turnabout fair play? Am I justified in responding in kind to the person who targetted me? if so, may I escalate in my return jibe with the assurance that right is on my side as I did not start hostilities? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/26 "2001-11-08T18:21:04Z")
Dunno. Do you mean would it be fair to propose an equally spurious counter-offer portraying the original jiber in an unflattering light? I’d probably find such turnabout amusing and entertaining, as I suspect would many. I guess the _rightness_ of the action would have to be interpreted based on the specifics of the action itself. The concept of turnabout being fairplay is largely accepted when the weight of the parry and riposte corresponds accurately to the weight of the original thrust. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/27 "2001-11-08T18:24:21Z")
OTOH, when such verbal fencing becomes its own individual melee, it’s no longer entertainment; it’s distraction. Both participants in such combative hijacking of a thread deserve to be wedgied with extreme prejudice (and Kung Fu grip). IMHO, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/28 "2001-11-08T18:25:50Z")
Again, I agree. But, with each escalation of turnabout, we grow closer and closer to outright hostility. In fact, I will offer **Scylla’s First Axiom** > [@](#): > > Major protracted hostilities within debates are usually founded upon the the geometric escalation of a minor quibble ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/29 "2001-11-08T18:33:54Z")
I’ll buy that. I’ll even offer **xeno’s corrollary** (btw, do I have to double up on the article “the” since it appears that way in the axiom?): > [@](#): > > In any escalation of a minor quibble, the extent of hostilities is usually in inverse proportion to the importance of the quibble. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/30 "2001-11-08T18:38:35Z")
Excellent, and agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/31 "2001-11-08T19:05:45Z")
So, seeing as it was Elucidator who provided the example that allowed us to derive the axiom and it’s corollary, I feel a little guilty about leaving him out. Should we name the relentless and immature escalation of minor quibbles into full fledged hostilities **The Elucidator Effect**? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/32 "2001-11-08T19:11:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > …I will offer **Scylla’s First Axiom** > > > [@](#): > > > > Major protracted hostilities within debates are usually founded upon the the geometric escalation of a minor quibble Oh, indeed, and this is almost a “perfect” axiom too, as it is almost self-evident. The reason _for_ the escalation is just _because_ it is a minor quibble!— that is, _it is so fucking obvious that I can’t believe I am reduced to having to debate it_! In a long, complicated discussion it may take several posts to get a point across, and if that fails, well, both parties (in my experience) just go opposite ways, or perhaps if it is early in the thread another tack is tried. But something simple (like, oh, definitions for pedophilia? ;)) can inflame the senses early and efficiently. Very interesting axiom indeed. I wonder how resident pitizens would feel about it? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/33 "2001-11-08T19:17:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Should we name the relentless and immature escalation of minor quibbles into full fledged hostilities [after someone I wish to insult]? I don’t think so. If we named it at all it should be named after someone who actually propagates such an escalation. And wouldn’t such a naming (or the proposal for it) be considered propogation? And thus the _namer_ becomes prime candidate for being _named_? It’s wheels within wheels, I tells ya. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/34 "2001-11-08T19:24:08Z")
Well you **did** say turnabout was fair play, and after all it wouldn’t be fair to hog all the naming for myself… On the other hand, **Scyllization** has a certain ring to it. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/35 "2001-11-08T19:42:13Z")
The following parameter of conduct is proposed: Debaters are not permitted to issue a venomous criticism of any public figure based on their _feelings_. For example, if one says “Condoleeza Rice is a venomous little guttersnipe who makes my hair stand on end”, one is obliged to present **evidence** as to why this is so. The legitimacy of a stand taken on the basis of an emotional response is not debatable. If that’s all you have, take your wo, wo, wo feelings elsewhere. Violators should be assigned to cover the Wayne Newton U.S.O. tour on behalf of the SDMB, with attendance mandatory at all performances. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/36 "2001-11-08T19:55:05Z")
**Scylla** : I suppose you could claim rights to the following progression:[ul][li]Turnabout is fair play[_]and nomenclature is nothing more than namecalling[_]and I’ve named an assumption about unpleasant behavior after myselftherefore it’s fair play to name the unpleasant behavior after my opponent[/ul]We’ll call it a _Scyllagism_.[/li] **Jackmannii** : I agree. Unsupported Condee condemnations or similar pointless slurs belong in IMHO or the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/37 "2001-11-08T20:07:27Z")
Yeah, **Jackmannii** ’s suggestion gets immediate consideration, while mine sits there, gathering dust. Maybe I should change my handle to **chopped liver**. 😉 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > I’ll buy that. I’ll even offer **xeno’s corrollary** No, not acceptable. But if you can propose a **xeno’s paradox** , that would be worthwhile. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/38 "2001-11-08T20:42:11Z")
xenophon: Excellent reasoning, **The Elucidator Effect** it is. RTF: Interesting point. I’ve noticed this kind of thing a lot in Great Debates. Spiritus Mundi falls victim to this same effect with regularity. So I’d offer **Mundi’s Law** “A proposition’s likelihood of being completely ignored correlates directly with its reasonableness.” ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/39 "2001-11-08T20:44:13Z")
**RTF** : I’m not done reading your first post. I was rushed when I started and just read half of it, then I came back and read half of the remaining, and, well… Just as _soon_ as I’m done with it I’ll comment! –Actually, I found nothing in your post to disagree with, but I wonder if you feel the same way about unilateral _constriction_ of a broad debate into one critical element of the wider issue. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079/40 "2001-11-08T21:06:51Z")
**Scylla** : My _reasoning_ appeared in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1802326#post1802326). I was arguing against the application of your Scyllagism. (Just so it’s clear who’s misinterpreted whom.) I’d propose that if the effect _must_ be named, perhaps “picayunity” is a suitable term, since the effect needs a plurality of effort to manifest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debate-how-to-and-the-rule-book/92079.md?page=3)