I don’t know if we would want to label it “controversy,” but in as much the military is filling in the vacuum of titular rule in Egypt, we might easily say that Mubarak’s rule effectively hasn’t ended yet.
In other words, what does it mean to “rule” a country (such as Egypt, in this case). I think this is one of the greatest values of debate: the introduction of new ways of perceiving things, and the questioning of assumptions.
Sure, no disagreement: at the point where there’s controversy is where one should either define one’s terms or introduce facts to support one’s claims.
Sigh. No, that’s not my opinion. That’s not what I said. That has no more to do with what I wrote than anything Diogenes wrote. Please reread the OP, paying attention to the phrase I underlined in my response to Diogenes.
No. Just because someone wants to claim that a belief is an opinion and thereby make the belief immune from criticism.
I’m not a frequent Great Debates poster but I do enjoy reading the mostly fruitless back and forth.
The thing about facts, actual facts, is that they are rarely found. We don’t get facts in GD, what we get are ‘cites’. A cite is a link to yet another opinion, that will be disputed with different cites of other points of view or opinions. Some posters appear to have limitless files containing links that support their pet issues. Cites from Wikipedia are problematic because they are also often opinion biased. Editorial opinions are not facts. Cites of some authority in the subject field are not facts.
Facts are things that both sides should be able to agree upon before any debate begins. And that isn’t going to happen.
Great Debates is a usually polite war of opinion. Standing upon the back of a giant opinion turtle, and it’s opinions all the way down.
I’ll tell you what would be really interesting. Define the subject and agree upon the sources of the facts to be used in the arguement. Pre-agreement on the facts to be used, then debate away.
That is a fantasy. The reality is that the facts offered are opinion, beliefs are opinion, and all GD ends up being is a contest between a few posters who haven’t given up on the subject after 3 or 4 pages.
Good thing that’s not what the OP said. It’s quite clear that he saying that, if you do what the guy did in the other thread, then you will look like an idiot. You can’t just pop into Great Debates and say “You can’t argue with me. It’s just my opinion” and not be thought of as an idiot.
All the OP was trying to do was explain why, by classifying statements into three types. Statements everyone agrees with (facts), statements that require no backing, as they are personal (opinions) and statements you are trying to convince other people to agree with (beliefs).
The ones that are actually useful in GD are facts and beliefs. Opinions, while unavoidable in posts, should not be the focus–exactly the way GD is already set up.
So if you guys are arguing against the OP, you’re arguing with the concept of GD itself. GD is about trying to convince people of stuff. IMHO is about sharing your opinions without argument.
I disagree. Did you read my post in which I delineate many of the facts surrounding Mubarak’s history in Egypt? People agree on most of the salient facts. What people disagree on is the proper interpretation of these facts. The best arguments are when people explain how the relevant facts, coupled with rigorous logic, lead to a certain interpretation, lead to particular beliefs. The worst are where people offer nothing except blanket claims of truth.
And yes, you people who keep misusing the word opinion are OH SO CLEVER. You’re like, ironic and hip, all at the same time. You win the internet, even.
I basically agree with the OP, I think it’s a good idea to separate those concepts.
There is the problem of the exact boundaries between the three categories and that personal experience may colour how you perceive something.
I’m sorry I have upset you. In my world there needs to be a place for opinions without consequence that just might stimulate brighter minds for or against. Just where do you suggest that I may be permitted to express myself without the obligation to joust with your superior intellect.
This is probably frustrating for Lefty. He isn’t saying that you are not permitted to express an opinion anywhere. He is suggesting that beliefs not be put forth as opinions.