The difficulty with Great Debates is that it’s about things that essentially can’t be nailed down, implicitly validating sides and perspectives in any debate. I’ve ceased thinking of the threads as tennis matches between sides and started thinking of it as two people competitively stacking mounds of evidence, logic and conjecture into constructs resembling the shape of the world. In terms of a formal debate, this would be pretty much exactly wrong, but I do think it has merits for the peanut gallery.
(As you can see, it’s probably a very good thing I’m not a GD moderator, by the way.)
If you want more formal, strict and moderated debates, I suggest the freeratio.org boards. Yes, the slant is a bit apparent, but the Formal Debates are usually worth reading and participating in.
I’ve posted this opinion before and no one else likes it, but WTF, I’ll give it another shot.
The Debate forum should be eliminated altogether. There are no real debates in it, there are clashing opinions. And unless the debates are going to be moderated and judged (and I don’t think anyone would want to suffer the slings and arrows of being a judge given the confrontational attitudes here), any threads residing there will be better suited to IMHO.
Yeah. It’s just one of those threads that branched off and became a nastier version of the GD equivalent.
It’s still the same sort of bullheaded logic from the GD thread I speak of, though. The person in question here explicitly mentioned, in a post up above that one, that they wanted to have an actual discussion and didn’t seem to care that it was the BBQ Pit.
I suspect FixMyIgnorance quoted me here because I pointed out (or at least argued) in that thread that he himself was doing pretty much exactly what he is complaining about in this thread.
But that’s the problem: One man’s compelling piece of evidence is another man’s irrelevant distraction. One man’s evasive non-answer is another man’s full and complete response. It always seems like the other fellow is being a “trolling asshat” if he doesn’t accept your argument.
It’s too much to ask the moderators to judge these sorts of disputes.
Yes, to an extent. That’s not exactly what I had in mind but for practical purposes perhaps it’s basically the same as what I was thinking.
It’s a lot easier to identify and judge a personal insult or a racial slur or even a troll than a post which exaggerates an opponent’s argument or ignores an important piece of evidence.
Besides which, the practical effect of a “no dishonest debate” rule would likely be to have moderators resolving which side the debate is correct. And possibly even turn the debate board into an echo chamber.
Anyway, further to my previous post I do not want this thread to devolve into Round Two of my recent exchange with FixMyIgnorance. If he uses my posts as examples of “bullheadedness” or whatever, I will try not respond to the particulars.
It’s not about taking sides or judging which side of a dispute is “correct.” It’s aboutintellectually honest debate.
The reason I called you a troll is because I suspect you are just playing to plausible deniability (as I was arguing in this thread), because half of the questions you ask are indeed reasonable, but then the other half are just full-tilt full of batshit like your “evasion” claim. This way you have the freedom to be an ass by making absurd statements you know will derail things while constantly accusing me of avoiding the rest of your argument. It’s a dishonest way to try to discredit the opposing side of the debate (reminds me a lot of the tactics used on Fox News).
I don’t see how any intellectually-honest person could call what I did evasion. You claimed to want to understand a particular point better. You were given lots of elaboration and detail as I just linked to in this thread. But you claim it’s evasion because it didn’t fit within your overly simplified paradigm of “Is this pretty much it? Yes or no.”
“Yes” could be inaccurate because there was more to the position. “No” could have been inaccurate because what was there was correct, just incomplete. To resolve the ambiguity, that’s why I said “Sort of/yes and no” to explicitly answer the letter of your question while giving more detail to answer the spirit of your question.
But again, accusing people of ignoring/evading the question when they answer it and give more detail is just outright dishonest, and it’s exactly what I talk about here. It’s not a debate when you’re going to pull underhanded tactics and say one thing but do another. Don’t ask for a reasonable debate if you’re going to dick around is all I am saying. If you think someone is evading you, you typically give reasons why. You don’t just keep saying “You’re evading, you’re evading” when they continue to answer your question directly and adequately.
Also, an example of your black-and-white reasoning (i.e. traps that set up disputes no matter how they are answered):
To which you responded:
You’re trying to bin my responses into misleading categories just so you can skew the position or argue that I’m evading you if I answer differently than straight-up “yes or no” or “1 or 2,” etc. It’s dishonest.
I’m not going to respond to the particulars of this except to say that I disagree with you. Any further response will devolve into Round Two of our exchange.
And to observe that in a debate, it’s very common for both people to think that the other fellow is being intellectually dishonest. I don’t think it makes sense for moderators to resolve these kinds of issues.
No, because intellectual dishonest is typically much easier to prove than whether an argument is wrong/right.
I will simplify:
I answer “yes” and confirm your statement even though it’s incomplete. By answering this way, you force me to misrepresent/oversimplify my position.
I answer “no” and mislead you even though it was partially correct, albeit incomplete. By answering this way you force me to say no to things I think are true.
I tell you that it’s only sort-of representative of my position (which is true), and go one step further and give you more detail because you claimed your intent was to understand the position better. However, in response you claim it’s evasion instead and that I haven’t answered your question.
This is what I mean by “dishonesty.” No matter what is done, you have some excuse to attack your opponent that is largely set up by the way you frame your question. Seriously, what kind of response could have possibly satisfied otherwise? How on earth is giving more detail and clarifying the incompleteness of your question evasion? It’s not.
And again, this is a sort of dishonesty that is much easier to show and have upheld in a report to a mod for the sake of raising the standard of debate quality.
So, brazil, answer me this:
Is the current Frogprince Ambassador of America green? A simple yes or no will do.
FixMyIgnorance, as brazil84 says, this is not the place to engage in debate on this subject. As has been said above, it is generally not the role of the moderators here to referee a debate. If you wish to accuse someone of dishonesty, the best place to do so is in the Pit, not here.
