That’s quite a controversial claim.
Well, they’re all primates, so there’s that.
Good lord, what nonsense.
If I choose to argue a point from a side contrary to my “real” positions, I’m entitled to do so. How is that “lying”? And argument is not couched in terms of “I believe that…” That’s not argumentation or debate; that’s simply bloviating. An argument/debate is couched in terms of things that are able to be discussed in terms of truth or falsity, or the validity of the underlying assumptions/evidence. And those don’t depend upon my internally held viewpoints.
If Bricker can manage to properly argue some position that he normally would argue against, who are you to complain that it’s he who is making the argument, as opposed to, say, Left Hand of Dorkness? :dubious:
I’ve done this once or twice and had no issue. I also got into one series of exchanges basically “written” by a friend who isn’t on the Dope. It was something about why conservatives do something; not really knowing I asked a friend and supplied his response. It isn’t without danger and I’m fast to back out of a thread if it gets too heated. But it does have its purposes and uses.
The central issue here is whether the participants think they’re having a classic debate or they think they’re having a frank and candid discussion about their personal points of view.
Somebody who came into a discussion expecting one but receiving the other would indeed believe the players were at best disingenuous and at worst lying.
Which is another facet to the idea that on a debate team, the personalities and even indentities of the members are immaterial. Whether the argument is delivered by teammember #2 or teammember #4 doesn’t matter. Everybody knows its about the argument not the people and they could indeed by delivered by anonymous writing read aloud by a droid.
But if the “purpose” of the discussion is for e.g. LSLGuy, Bricker, BigT, and DSYoungEsq to get to know one another and their respective opinions better, some of us arguing for what we don’t believe in will really detract from the conversation. And will strongly impact other’s impression of one’s trustworthiness.
There may once, in the dim mists of the past, been a time when the GD forum was truly for debate, as opposed to suasion over personal opinion. IMO that time is long past. Anyone wanting to treat a thread as a debate in the formal sense had better make that very obvious in both the OP and in most posts. Even then they’ll find many participants won’t get the message.
As we see in this very thread, many people won’t even understand there’s a message to get.
Be that as it may, what’s under discussion here is what behavior is acceptable and what behavior should be moderated. That is the central issue at least for this thread. You may be onto a larger “central issue”, but if we’re going to have that discussion it should be in a thread dedicated to that, and not just some side discussion in a Devils’ Advocate discussion.
OK. Fair enough.
Now we’ve framed the issues: Some people like classic debates and some people like candid conversations. Confusion, hurt feelings, or other Bad Things may happen when someone’s expectation or understanding of a thread’s context doesn’t match the reality of the context. The Mods’ job is to stop Bad Things early. The Rules’ job is to outline expectations and behaviors for all to play within.
IMO …
A true troll will out himself (very rarely herself) by his insincerity that quickly becomes jerkish. An honest debater will out him/herself as a debater by the quality of the debate. Assisted when it seems helpful by disclosures that he/she is engaged in classic debate, not necessarily candid conversation. An honest debater will also be sensitive to when his message isn’t being received in the spirit it was offered. And can clarify intent right then and there before growing hostility attracts a Mod. It’s a sound debate tactic to ensure you’re not pissing of your audience; if they’re getting hostile you want to fix that.
Moderators should be aware of the possibility for this category confusion to generate a controversy. And be prepared to calm the waters by explaining any particular thread’s context to somebody who got it wrong. Plus do the normal rules enforcement for people who’re unable to keep it civil. Or who demonstrate they are trolls.
If the purpose of a thread is simply to find out how each of us feels about a subject, that’s exactly what IMHO is for. We can sit around the fire and offer up our opinions, poking mild fun at each other when we say something faintly stupid, or giving a rousing “hear, hear!” when someone makes a pungent point.
I’ve been using this Board since it WAS a Board (I go back to the AOL days, actually). I’ve never viewed Great Debates as anything but a place where great issues get hashed out between and among us all, usually in fairly pithy fashion. I wouldn’t get involved in a thread on why the US tolerate bad schools just to find out what Urbanredneck or LHOD hold in the way of opinions; I would get involved to try and establish some clarity regarding the subject, through spirited oppositional posting of viewpoints. I don’t really care who makes what points; I might express surprise if LHOD said something that sounded like it would come from a GOP Congresscritter, but I wouldn’t push the issue, because it’s the point that matters, not the person making it.
As you point out in the last post you made before this one, trolls will out. Mods are pretty good at spotting them when they show up. I doubt much of anyone knows what MY “true” feelings are about most of what I post on here, since I often see my “job” as it were to keep both the “conservative” and the “liberal” posters in line by pointing out when they are making arguments that are not logical, or lack supportive fact. Under the circumstances, I think worrying about what my “real” feelings are would be missing the point.
Very well said. Good points throughout. Ref the snip above …
I may well be the one out of step here. But I’ve tended to think of IMHO as “I want to discuss something that probably won’t raise anyone’s hackles” and GD as “I want to discuss something that probably will raise someone’s hackles.”
IOW the difference is degree of passion and controversy, not whether we’re classically debating vs. just chewing the fat.
I may be all wet versus how it was in the olden dayes; I’m a late and part-time participant in GD. But I suspect a lot of posters here today parse the forums as I do. And the “problem” raised in this ATMB thread, if there even is one, comes in when we have this disparity in expectations about what GD is for.
I’m with DSYoung on this. If someone else thinks GD is a chit-chat room, then I see it as their problem, not mine. And if they don’t like being asked to back up their assertions with cites, then… can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
This could very well be a more “modern” view of the two forums; I probably am set in my ways from the old days. But I don’t think it was that long ago when, if I tried to start a thread that wasn’t deemed “weighty” enough, it got kicked downstairs from GC to IMHO, or worse, MPSIMS. Certainly, I was passionate about them! 
It’s ridiculous if a person wants to debate a point of view that people feel entitled to a page full of disclaimers.
You’d be surprised that what you assume to be the qualities of a winning debate don’t exactly coincide with what wins debates.
I don’t see why the Hecklers’ Veto should work in Great Debates.
The only wrinkle in that assertion is that GD is where witnessing is banished. The level of religious apologetics posted here is terrible and sad, generally consisting of “I believe what I believe and you are wrong because you are wrong and going to Hell, and I don’t have to prove anything.” Which is, prima facie, antithetical to the charter of GD.
Maybe exile to GD is primarily about exposing the intellectual weakness of unreasoning witnessing. Like the Pit, but more focused.
Seventeen and a half years, baby!
No offense whatsoever. 
Wait, how’d I get pulled into this?
I see a difference between your two hypotheticals:
- Argue a position you don’t hold cogently; and
- Argue a position you don’t hold shittily.
Doing the first doesn’t present any sort of problem. If you’re putting forward what you truly consider to be the best points for a position, those points may be opposed reasonably.
Doing the second, I think, is a scummy practice that manipulates a bit of psychology. People tend to think that a position’s strongest arguments are being offered, and that if the points in support of a proposition are refuted, the proposition itself is refuted. Giving deliberately shitty arguments in favor of a position you oppose is designed to get others to oppose that position, without actually going to the effort of giving good reasons to oppose it.
I don’t think it leads to clarity.
Satire is different, inasmuch as it’s a recognized art form. When satire isn’t recognized as such, shit gets ugly, and the best you can do is point and laugh at the rubes who took it seriously. If you’re proposing people offer satire in great debates, that seems fine; but if you’re proposing people engage in a deliberately deceptive shitty argument strategy, I kinda hate that idea.
Consider it a badge of honor. 
I would agree with that. But I would note that, if someone tried to make an argument using “shitty” logic, those who would normally make the argument are going to jump in and call the person on that. As in, “No, that’s NOT what we would argue at all, and here’s why…” So I think that sort of trolling is fairly easily identified and the mods can deal with it accordingly.
But some people just are shitty debaters. Wouldn’t you at least want to distinguish between do so deliberately and doing so because… well, it’s the best you actually can do?
Again, that’s something the mods can sort out, and I think they do so relatively well.
I agree. The thread I started in GD justifying terrorism (which I don’t believe can be justified) wasn’t a trainwreck and needed no mod intervention. This style of debate can work perfectly well on the board, and in fact has done so in the past.