[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by flowbark *
- [And I encourage Persephone to show us the door if this becomes too much of a hijack.]
Oh no. Feel free to debate debating. It’s all a learning tool!
*Also, think about what arguments people will make against your points. *
Nice tip. Sometimes, the poster might think about pitching the post to his or her adversaries. One might argue that Politician X’s budget is inconsistent with Liberal ideals, if one was a conservative for example.
Of course, at other times you may prefer a full-frontal assault. (Factually (or logically) grounded and nonabusive, of course).
There are a lot of more-subtle points above, but I think the main one is still to have command of the relevant facts. Everything else follows or can be papered over, but if you don’t have the facts, you don’t have an argument, and if you do, you do. Do not follow the examples of those who stomp away pissily when their lack of knowledge of the facts, or their filtered use of them, or their gaps in logic based on them are shown to them.
Who the fuck is beagledave?
Two additional points you need to be aware of:
[ul][li]Every thread gets hijacked![/li][li]We can turn anything into a debate![/li][/ul]
Polycarp said:
Cannot!
**Poly. ** Bubbie. I’m from MPSIMS, aka Hijack Central. I can hijack with the best of 'em. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by David B *
**Polycarp said:
Can too!!
Thanks for starting this thread, Persephone - and a huge THANK YOU to all of the GDers who have posted with advice and information.
Like Persephone and Shirley Ujest, I’m a little overawed by most of the GD denizens, so I rarely post here, and I definitely try to stay out of topics that I think are over my head! But I love reading GD - it’s my favorite forum on the board, and I’ve gotten quite an education here over the last few years.
So, if anyone is still wondering about their effect on lurkers - reading GD has literally changed my life since I discovered the boards way back in 1999. I often spend more time with a search engine looking up something from GD than I spend actually reading the threads.
I love this place! 
Cite?
:::d&r:::
I suppose I disagree. If the evidence needs weighing like that it isn’t evidence, it is a debate in itself. (this was my point 3, not that you, by asking for clarification, had started a debate… even though you have! :p)
This would probably explain why we do not often participate in the same debates (a shame, of course, your discourse is most appealing). However, it would be simple enough to start an IMHO thread asking people: “If debating at the dope has changed your mind on something, was it more because of the evidence presented (data from citations) or more because of the arguments given?” Then we can argue over how accurate subjective interpretation is. The interplay between the two is of course there, a good argument needs to be backed by evidence, and what good evidence is is backed by an argument, but I think people would tend to consider one element stronger than the other in most cases (extrapolating from my own case rather irresponsibly).
I would imagine this is often quite true, but the recent metric debate put me in a foul temper when in fact I could care less what measurement system is used.
Indeed, though not instructive on the evidence but the position. If a bias in perceiving evidence is revealed, for example, would you pull out more evidence to eliminate it? (perhaps so, but that sounds strange to me as I say it)
You learn well, grasshopper.
My advice to people looking to get involved in GD is to be honest about your position and purpose in a debate. Don’t play games or try to trick people. Don’t post about one subject to lure people into discussing another one. To invent an example, don’t start a thread about date rape on college campuses if your intent is to convince people that students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Start the thread about the issue that you really want to talk about.
Also avoid making points using sarcasm or irony unless you clearly indicate that this is what you’re doing, and always be sure to explain plainly what your real position is. High-profile posters whose beliefs on certain subjects are well-known can get away with more of this kind of irony than others, but even they shouldn’t take it for granted that everyone will understand what they really mean. Long ago on another forum I invented a rule I modestly called “Lamia’s Law”, holding that there is nothing you could possibly say online that is so obviously wrongheaded, stupid, offensive, or dangerous that you can expect that all readers will know you don’t mean it literally, because someone somewhere else online has already said the same thing and meant it. Keep that in mind and you’ll avoid a lot of misunderstandings.
It’s self-referential!
This thread would make for a great sticky…
Yeeesh! You don’t think Great Debates is sticky enough?
I don’t know that I’d want this one named after myself… 
As advice to Lamia, I see your point.
But it’s something I think you ought to relish as a true Discordian!
Hey, there’s no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name right!
Ha! How very appropriate indeed. [serious cap]I can see that Lamia’s law is actually quite useful for how much sarcasm gets misinterpreted.[/sc]
That’s all well and good, **Poly, ** but now you’re avoiding the real issue here. You claimed that anything could be turned into a debate here. I asked for a cite. Now it’s up to you to back up your claim.
:::ducking and running even faster, knowing full well I’m SO poking the wrong guy with a stick…:::