Not Debating in Great Debates

About This Message Board
1

There is an ongoing thread in GD, wherein the “under God” part of the Pledge is being thrashed out (again). A pattern seems to be emerging that I think is rather common for a certain type of Doper. The Doper in question seems to be endlessly repeating certain dogmatic assertions, without presenting anything by way of citation or logic or the usual forms of rational debate.

Perhaps we can begin by assuming that this is NOT trolling.

My question/basis for discussion lies in what appears to be an unofficial guideline offered by one of the mods -

Again, assuming this is not trolling, I suppose it must be considered something else - witnessing, perhaps. I think we can take it for granted that this is not participation in debate.

If it is witnessing, well and good - GD is the forum for that, certainly. My question is, apparently witnessing is not the appropriate response to witnessing. Is that the case?

What are the guidelines for witnessing in GD (if any)? Is only one party, presumably the first to engage in it, allowed to do this, and others who want to debate encouraged to ignore it and debate instead?

ISTM that the Doper doing the witnessing is generally regarded as a one-trick pony on certain subjects, at least in GD. The Doper being advised to ignore the witnessing very much is not - he is one of the most able and erudite Dopers (IMO) on the boards. Is that the basis for the advice - expectations are higher for some Dopers than for others?

If so, should that be the case? By which I mean, once you are pegged as someone with nothing to add besides endless repetition of “Republicans are evil/anti-abortion people are evil/Christians are evil”, does, or should, that earn you a pass from participating in genuine debate that a more reasonable poster does not get?

ISTM that a more reasonable response would be to address the guidance/admonition/whatever it was intended to be to the Doper who is not particpating in debate, and ask them on the same level to give it a rest and not clutter up a debate?

The short version of this is, if witnessing is dragging down a thread, shouldn’t the person doing the witnessing be advised to knock it off (or take it to a different thread) rather than asking the rest of the Dope to ignore it and not respond in kind?

Regards,
Shodan

On preview - if the mod admonition is just a suggestion, and has no force, is it the case that it can be safely disregarded? And no sanctions will be taken against those who do ignore it?

2

I’m glad you opened this thread, as I saw what was happening in the other thread.

However, I think you’re making it too complicated. For me, anyway, I’d just like an answer to the simple question **Bricker **asked: Does the admonition apply only to him, and not to DT? If so, why? If not, is there a new rule in GD that mods will be enforcing people to actually debate, and not offer unsupported opinions? And just to be clear… I’d be OK with that if we could make it work.

3

My feeling is that if it’s ok for one poster to do it, it’s ok for all posters to do it.

Don’t like the way the forum looks/reads with everyone in the forum doing the annoying behavior? Then don’t let anyone do it.

4

From the arguments I’ve seen in GD and the ability of most people to get tied up in knots avoiding giving points to any side but their own; the whole GD forum is pointless. In other words no one will change their debate style ever. The Mods will continue to admonish in whatever style they wish on their whims at the moment.

5

Possibly.

That’s why I mentioned witnessing. ISTM that this is an example of that. If it is, fine, but then we reach your question - is witnessing fine for some but not for others?

Regards,
Shodan

6

FYI, the mod in question has clarified that his post, the one linked to in my OP, is merely advice as a poster and not a mod action of any sort.

IOW, it appears that simply responding in kind to this sort of thing is apparently copacetic. We shall see.

Regards,
Shodan

7

My comment, which very carefully did not include either a reference to my Moderator status or a direct order of behavior, was simply a general suggestion that the way to treat really dumb comments, (particularly when there is an ongoing discussion by posters who are not making really dumb comments), is to ignore the pointless comments rather than imitating them.

No poster has been admonished or Warned.
No poster has been directed to change his or her behavior.
Nothing currently posted in that thread has drawn my official attention as a Mod.

8

That’s a shame. I’d much rather hear that the Great DEBATES forum will be held to some minimal standard of debate, and the mindless repetition of assertions without argument or citation to fact would be prohibited.

9

That would be nice, but there are eleven-plus years of precedent that cap the ratio of thoughtful GD posts to worthless drivel at about 1:7.

10

Would that include a “mindless repetition of assertions” that invoking God is *not *an act of religion?

11

Nope. I expect it only applies to “Der Trihs posting”.

12

Come, now. You are hardly the only poster who wanders through that forum strewing absolutist expressions of personal prejudices as fact. There are quite a few posters–from all manner of philosophical and political perspectives–who do the same sort of thing. You may be pre-eminent among them, but you are hardly alone.

13

Get off your cross. :smiley:

Regards,
Shodan

14

I agree 100%. GD is useless, IMO – it’s just a sounding board for partisan people to try out their talking point on each other.

I’ve always found that the best debates end up happening in the Pit. At least there, once you realize that someone isn’t going to debate honestly you can just make fun of them instead. (Recent example.)

15

The subject matter is not the issue, Der Trihs, nor is the author relevant. It’s making an assertion and then failing to provide any citation to authority that supports it.

For example, if I say, “Merely invoking God is not act act of religion,” and then say nothing more, that’s a gratuitous assertion.

But if I say, “Merely invoking God is not an act of religion,” and I cite to Marsh v. Chambers and Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, I have provided support for my cite. The strength and applicability of those cites may of course be discussed, and that is the correct method of debate.

Note that “discussed” does not simply mean, “rejected with no reasoning.”

They’re wrong! (Not debate)

They’re wrong, because they’re corrupt and spineless! (Also not debate)

They’re wrong, because (actual reasoning). (Debate!)

16

Is citing case law the highest form of debate, then? Is it possible to participate in a debate without being a lawyer, or at the very least providing multiple legal references? Do personal opinions based on observation and experience have no place in Great Debates?

17

Not that I agree with your characterization of what I do, but there were plenty of people making statements in that thread without citing everything. Bricker was getting angry over me doing what everyone else was doing (and what he was doing, as ElvisL1ves points out) ; I saw and still see it as a matter of him simply having a problem with me and my opinions, personally.

18

ISTM that you should do something beyond simply accusing people (in this case, the Supreme Court).

I kind of doubt that Der Trihs has any personal experience with the Supreme Court that would validate his opinions.

This, unfortunately, is just flat-out false. Everyone else was not doing that, and in particular Bricker was not doing that. You were.

Like I said, get off the cross. The mods have ruled in your favor. You get to repeat your bullshit endlessly, and you apparently aren’t going to have to back any of it up.

Congratulations.

Regards,
Shodan

19

It depends on the subject.

When debating a legal question… yes, case law is up there. Statutory law is also a strong contender.

If your position is simply, “It’s my opinion!” then there’s another forum where you will undoubtedly be welcomed with open arms.

Or you might wish to argue that a law SHOULD be passed, or not passed, for the resultant positive social effects. In that case, caselaw is not relevant. But you should then be able to point to soomething that validates your theory, some evidence apart from observation and experience.

At the very least, if your position is based on observation and experience only, then you should not state it as unassailable fact.

20

I didn’t see anyone else doing what you were doing.