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?
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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).
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scylla: My reasoning appeared in this post. 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.
