Typical pastafarian argument.
Smoke blowers or bullshit artists simply fabricate stuff. Practitioners of poor debate practices are ignorance enablers. Those who blatantly misrepresent past statements are willful distorters.
“Shedding more heat than light” also might be apt on occasion.
Cranks, fringies, loons and nutjobs are wholly distinct from trolls: the former are arguably outside of the scope of this thread.
In part because it’s a message board, not a competition.
I never could understand why people would bother doing that in a written media. It’s all been said before, and people can go back and read it again if they didn’t get it the first time. I don’t keep repeating myself after I have said all that needs to be said (at least if it is written—vocal is a different matter).
The idea is to exchange information. You will get some trolling and some honest people who will never get it.
But that is the way the REAL world works too. This board is better than most and a little bit too agressive banning, as you do have the option to block posters.
In fact, a poster may not respond to a post you read as he or she has blocked a member and can’t read what they wrote.
In GD, that category would be called “the majority.” 
I would suggest that you adopt your own rules of debate. And then just refuse to engage with people who violate those rules. That’s what I do.
For example, my own Rule 1 prohibits the practice of “strawmanning.” I have found this to be the most common by far bad faith debating tactic in online discussions. i.e. when people misrepresent what their opponent is saying.
I think you will find that most of the issues you have had to deal with are covered by my rules. I think you will also find that following my rules will allow you to get to the very heart of an issue and filter out the nonsense.
The problem is that 99.99% of people are not good judges of intellectual honesty when the debate is over an issue they have a strong opinion on. You would be asking too much of the moderators.
Seriously, dude. The mods have enough to do just enforcing the rules that are already in place, and you want them to be “Debate Referees”, too? Where are they supposed to find the time? They’re only volunteers, you know.
The solution to unpaid, volunteer moderators who have neither the time nor the energy to serve as referees is clear, we need to send volunteer unpaid thugs to their houses in order to beat them into shape.
I’ll be a volunteer unpaid thug to motivate the first volunteer unpaid thug to go and beat the moderators.
It’s true that that’s what you attempt to do. The danger of your approach is that it gives you a tempting out in a discussion: if you can find a way that someone may be breaking a rule, you can refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt and instead cut off discussion with them, deceiving yourself into a belief that you’re behaving appropriately thereby.
Basically, it boils down to the forum being misnamed. The term “Great Debates” doesn’t mean it’s an actual debate forum. It’s using the term more figuratively for, as the description says, discussing the “great questions of our time.” Or, heck, to be more accurate, it’s the place where contentious topics can be discussed in an aggressive manner, as long as you don’t insult people directly (which is what the Pit is for).
I did encounter a forum that is more like what you want: It’s called “We Saved Hitler’s Brain” and is a part of the Cracked forums. They are so strict that you aren’t even allowed to voice an opinion when you set up a topic, as they believe that just starts the ball rolling of contentiousness.
Just as a warning: the guy there is completely opposed to transparency in moderation.
Oh, and brazil’s method doesn’t work except to keep you from ever changing your opinion. It unnecessarily pisses people off–thus garranteeing that people will break “the rules.” And there’s nothing forcing you to keep the rules if someone says something you like. It will just reinforce your views.
Of course, if one of the rules wasn’t “You can’t discuss my debating style”, it might work a little better.
If you make six points, the main one may get lost in the sauce. Moreover, you are more likely to get your key argument across if you make it twice.
I’ve seen one fine poster remain oblivious to a basic point made repeatedly for literally about 5+ consecutive pages. At that juncture it was time to start mocking.
I only peg a poster as dishonest after many years and after I witness multiple examples where I am not one of the discussants.
Generally speaking, I don’t see much dishonesty here. I see a ton of bad argumentation. Most people here (myself included) have never studied rhetoric formally. Furthermore, my understanding is that most introductory classes in rhetoric are pretty basic: they may cover logical fallacy but self deception, gamesmanship and multiple motivation is still imperfectly understood. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that I could pick apart the OP’s style of argumentation if I cared enough to visit his particular thread in the Pit and GD. To be clear, the level of argumentation might improve if there was but a single textbook that handled these issues well.
GD isn’t especially good for settling anything. What it can do however is compile some of the main arguments on a given subject. That is useful in my view. Indeed, the point of GD is provide a forum for issues that can’t be settled.
That said, although some issues can’t be settled, it should be possible theoretically to trace a disagreement between 2 good faith discussants to an underlying axiom or assumption set. But such an exercise is beyond the powers of GD as currently constituted.
Again, I believe the mocking should have started after less than one page. It is a written medium, and saying the same thing over and over makes the repeaters almost as bad as the obtuse person not getting the point.
In practice though, you need to say something twice (usually in different ways) to get a main point across. After that, you are indeed usually dealing with obtuseness. I deal with human nature and this board as it is, not how one might wish it to be.
And in the thread in question, annoyance set in on page 1. I was late to the party and felt that it was time to shift gears and crank up the mocking on page 3? 5?. Here’s the thing though: the poster in question was a member of the SD’s scientific advisory board. The guy was not a troll by any stretch of the imagination: this was a mental lapse or more likely a reflection of temperament. Possibly he was overwhelmed by the pressing importance of the argument that he wanted to make. The underlying problem is that intelligent armchair debaters are not inoculated against bad debate techniques because the study of rhetoric is not really properly understood at present. The sort of taxonomy in the OP provides a decent start.
The tone of brazil’s entry doesn’t help either: it is smug, cantankerous and leaves the impression of a childish lack of self awareness. Which is a shame in a way, as I suspect that there’s some useful material in the muck. That said, there are posters who join my informal evasion list, though they typically are eventually banned from this board.
I think it is hard to distinguish insincerity from cluelessness or posting from assumptions which don’t make sense for most people. In any case, most times we post not to convince the other poster but to convince the lurking masses. Studiously unanswered points may be frustrating, but I think they get noticed.
Just think about certain political speeches being posted here and having to be defended. Trolls? No. Insincere? Usually not. Clueless. Quite often.
What really boggles me, though, is when people will outright ignore vital points that shut down a position. It’s like people can’t handle the cognitive dissonance and just ramp up their defenses even harder. It’s the sort of thing you see when you debate Creationists and Obama Birthers.
I came to these boards because I was excited at the notion of a site that “fights ignorance.” It’s also why I chose the name that I did. I came here wanting to have my myths and bad facts and misunderstandings completely thrown overboard. I want people to show me that I am wrong and that they have good reasons for saying so.
Maybe that’s not the goal of this site, but it’s how I interpreted it. Under this interpretation, it’s very difficult to resolve one’s ignorance when you’re looking at a 30-page deuce-dump because a few individuals are unwilling to concede any points. It becomes harder and harder to find “the straight dope” amidst the huge sea of bullcrap. A layman can’t necessarily tell the crackpottery apart from the legitimate points.
It’s hard enough to get good information in the real world without all the sensationalism and cognitive biases and factual misinterpretations and ignorance and propaganda getting in the way.
For a site that’s, well, focused on “the straight dope” and “fighting ignorance,” I don’t necessarily expect mods to go actively looking for intellectually dishonest debate, but I do think it would be useful if we could report people who exhibit these kinds of tactics (while giving many examples in the report) so that a higher standard of quality can be upheld.
Perhaps I am asking for too much, but I hope I’ve made the context of my intentions here a bit more clear.
When viewed from a distance, vital points are often not all that vital. What may seem a vital point to one person, is a trivial inconvenience to another.
No. Although I understand your frustration, I am completely against this. It isn’t the mods’ job to decide who is right and who is wrong in situations like that. They aren’t any more “experts” in things than other people are anyway.
It’s not strictly about “right” and “wrong,” as some subjects are very subjective. I am not asking for that.
I am talking about cases where people will outright ignore evidence that directly contradicts their claims instead of addressing it in some form, either by explaining why it’s irrelevant or why it’s wrong or why it’s weak evidence, etc. Many debates are useless if you’re going to just ignore facts.
Agh, GD. Here we go again.