Could the forum maybe institute a rule in Great Debates that, if someone starts a thread, they must:
Take an actual side in the debate (assume a burden rather than just ask a question), so that there is someone to respond to up front.
If they are going to start a thread with a claim like “some people believe” or “it’s been said,” not only must they state their position on the issue they are putting up for debate, they actually have to provide a cite to said “people” who have been “saying” that thing so that we can better evaluate this claim that supposedly originated with someone else in a fuller context.
?
Might help to boost the quality of debates, get more people willing to respond, and reduce the risk of debates being built on a straw man.
I would not be in favor of this. I don’t really start GD threads( I start hardly any threads, actually ), but sometimes you just want to suggest an argument you’d like to see talked about without having a strong opinion yourself. I think it’s fine to start a debate with “I’m unsure about my own opinion on this topic, but yadda yadda yadda…”
This seems a little more reasonable. I think at least one example seems like a decent place to start. “Many people, like this cite here, seem to believe…”
I agree with Tamerlane on both points. Generally I don’t start GD threads unless there’s an issue that I have conflicting thoughts about, and in that case I’d much rather hear other folks’ thoughts without staking out a firm position.
However, the “People on Twitter” debates are irksome.
Well, anyone on Twitter - or who takes people and trends on Twitter as at all indicative of anything meaningful is asking for disaster.
Best practice is to always start debates with a point-of-view and some explanatory launching point for the debate. Even if it is just, “Here’s what I’ve seen, I don’t know how I feel but I see this as being the important point yadda yadda yadda…” that at least gives some sort of start to it.
Just saying, “What about…” is really more an IMHO thread than a Great Debates thread. I’m not really willing to codify it - as always, vagueness is a feature and not a bug - but it’s best to actually debate in Great Debates.
As always, if you think something is not relevant or insufficient to Great Debates, go ahead and report it. We’ll get around to looking at it. I promise.
Well, anyone on Twitter - or who takes people and trends on Twitter as at all indicative of anything meaningful is asking for disaster.
Best practice is to always start debates with a point-of-view and some explanatory launching point for the debate. Even if it is just, “Here’s what I’ve seen, I don’t know how I feel but I see this as being the important point yadda yadda yadda…” that at least gives some sort of start to it.
Just saying, “What about…” is really more an IMHO thread than a Great Debates thread. I’m not really willing to codify it - as always, vagueness is a feature and not a bug - but it’s best to actually debate in Great Debates.
As always, if you think something is not relevant or insufficient to Great Debates, go ahead and report it. We’ll get around to looking at it. I promise.
Well, anyone on Twitter - or who takes people and trends on Twitter as at all indicative of anything meaningful is asking for disaster.
Best practice is to always start debates with a point-of-view and some explanatory launching point for the debate. Even if it is just, “Here’s what I’ve seen, I don’t know how I feel but I see this as being the important point yadda yadda yadda…” that at least gives some sort of start to it.
Just saying, “What about…” is really more an IMHO thread than a Great Debates thread. I’m not really willing to codify it - as always, vagueness is a feature and not a bug - but it’s best to actually debate in Great Debates.
As always, if you think something is not relevant or insufficient to Great Debates, go ahead and report it. We’ll get around to looking at it. I promise.
Some of the most interesting threads I’ve seen in Great Debates start that way. The OP is genuinely - we hope - interested in exploring the issue and discussing variables. That’s way better than endless partisan sniping.