OMG someone who really understands what’s going on with US politics!! Thank goodness!
Millions are always dying or having their lives ruined. If it wasn’t liberalism, it’d be something else. You’re just on an ego-trip that you’ve figured out how to blame someone and, conveniently, it’s someone you don’t like.
This. Specific arguments offered in GD threads generally do not affect my views on an issue. However, citations offered in support of certain arguments often affect my views on an issue.
I don’t know what the point of closing GD might be. Regardless of whether it’s the greatest deliberative forum in the history of the universe or just a decade-long pissing match, insightful and thoughtful posts are often made there. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Then challenge. That statement of twisted ideology is absurd and horribly wrong. There have to be about 2 people in the world who think something that stupid and one of them is no longer Gov. of Alaska.
Except, Socrates, that thread wasn’t about pressing issues of statecraft. Instead the topic was “RESOLVED: Carol Stream is shitty.” Thus causing your petition on behalf of the concerned citizens lurking and observing the outcome of the Great Conversation to come across as ridiculously high-toned and without even rudimentary self-awareness.
If you’re not just whooshin, when did you find out?
Exactly. Sometimes it’s one or the other; sometimes it’s a little of both. My philosophy about reading GD threads: Take the best, leave the rest.
I’m with you. My six months on the boards have been the best of my life. Lots of articulate artists (eg myself} and assholes (those who disagree with me) to love and hate. What a great idea.
If nothing else, great cites.
Long live GD, etc.!
No, that thread wasn’t about anything important, I never said it was. Neither is this one. I understood the topic of that thread to be that we should basically ignore someone if we think they’re acting like a troll. Generally good advice, but my point was that there might be a good reason to respond to such a person even if we do recognize that fact. If that sounds “high-toned” to you then so be it.
I’ve also never though of myself as possessing a great deal of self-awareness anyway.
As a lurker who reads the debates let me assure you that you are educating and influencing me.
The debates identify posters who hold looney beliefs or are not the sharpest knife in the drawer who otherwise appear normal in other forums. They also point out posters who have stepped on his/her dick, heh, and mght be appearing in an entertaining pit thread.
Late to my own non-pitting, isn’t that always the way with me?
Jihi, I believe we are talking apples and oranges. From the original thread:
From my observations, relatively few people engage Carol in debate. Most of her posts are drive-by snipings, and people generally respond in kind. I interpreted your post as justifying the responses Carol generally provokes. Not that any justification is necessary, but as much as I fault Carol for stirring things up, I also fault the multitude of people who respond in kind, derailing threads even further. So I was rather sympathetic to the thread’s OP.
All of that said, I feel I should address your OP. I obviously can’t speak to the motives of posters here, individually or as a whole. But the notion that participants are vying for the hearts and minds of the undecideds makes me cringe a little, for reasons I can’t really articulate.
I suppose it’s because it strikes me as a fruitless religious crusade. Most/almost all of the debates I’ve read can be pigeon-holed (sometimes more forcibly than others) into the tired Republicans versus Democrats theme. These are generally lost causes for swinging the undecided, I would imagine.
There are sometimes topics that come up that manage to escape this pitfall. These topics usually receive much too little traffic.
From a practical perspective, the success or failure of “influencing the national discussion” depends on the number of undecideds in the audience (generally pretty low) and the number of new ideas or data brought into the discussion (also pretty low)–this is assuming everyone is reasonably up-to-date on current events and had considered the topic before the discussion here. Failing a receptive audience or new ideas, you are only trading talking points back and forth, or playing gotcha with semantics.
None of this is to imply that there are never interesting debates here, or that people never reconsider their position. And as I said, I can’t speak for the motives of posters other than myself. But in all honesty, the debates here are usually long-winded versions of the debates we had in Composition and Rhetoric, with less data, fewer ideas, and more insults.
For better or worse, I imagine the debates here are probably decent re-enactments of the debates in Congress. I regret that this isn’t a very flattering comparison. 
My apologies for dragging Carol into this thread–it is not my intention to derail things.
Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense and I can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here. I wasn’t trying to defend Carol or anyone else in that thread, I was speaking more in generalities as I’ve tried to do here, but her name unfortunately got brought into it for obvious reasons. I really do think we were talking past one another.
I also think the word “troll” gets tossed around way too much and I think that was what I really responding to. It’s an easy accusation to throw out and it tends to cloud discussions.
I don’t know if I could be that cynical when I consider the receptiveness of the undecideds. I actually think that there’s more out there reading these debates than we suppose and they are being influenced by what they see, but I confess I may be drawing on my experiences to reach that conclusion. FWIW, I agree with you that the debates themselves generally tend toward the rote repetition of talking points, but I don’t know that we can really expect more than that. Everyone is drawing on the same pool of knowledge after all to form their arguments, and it’s more about dusting those talking points off and seeing if they stand up to scrutiny.
I can’t speak specifically to the motives either, and I want make it clear that I don’t think that this is something that happens deliberately. It’s more just a consequence of the public nature of the board and it’s highly charged political content. No one goes into a thread thinking, “I’m going to convert X number of undecideds today!” What happens is they see someone making what they think is an erroneous claim concerning an issue of importance to them and they go, “That’s bullshit! Counterargument!” Unfortunately not everyone makes it past the “It’s bullshit!”, part. 
Damn you all for being so reasonable!
A-friggin’-men to that.
Okay, I’ll buy that. I suppose I’m not really a political creature, and the idea of political evangelism just squicks me out. It seems like it’s usually done by the lunatic fringe of one side of the spectrum or the other, and I tend to tune it all out, or not take it seriously.
Now someone cuss at someone, perhaps we can still salvage this thread.
I don’t really agree with the OP. People change their opinions all the time due to the enhancement of information. I come here to test ideas as much as to sway people. I have seen people change their positions over time, and I have done so myself. Do we expect people to simply change their identity as a result? No, and that’s the criteria you have chosen as your exemplar. Liberals don’t suddenly become Conservatives usually, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be convinced on a particular piece of policy.
Perhaps you’re right mswas, but at the risk of playing semantics I did say that it “rarely happens” not that it “never happens”, and I stand by that. It’s rare enough that it can’t be the default assumption heading into any particular debate. Kudos to you for keeping an open mind about stuff though.
My main problem with GD being for the lurkers is that, myself usually being a lurker, I see way too much hostility between the debate participants. I rarely see one where one side doen’t accuse the other of debating dishonestly. It seems to me it would make much more sense to make dishonest debating against the rules, and to require participants to appeal to the moderators to see if it has occurred.
Instead we wind up with a forum that becomes pointless once the emotions get flying.
You know, way back when I signed up I think that there were four fora: GQ, GD, MPSIMS, and the Pit. For months I was under the mistaken impression that nobody actually started a discussion in GD; rather, it was a place where GQ threads were sent when it was clear that no factual answer existed (e.g., Kirk v. Picard, from the original forum description) and that the thread was doomed to endless, hopeless back-and-forth, which I hesitate to describe as “debate”.
I was wrong about not being able to start threads in GD.
Great Debates threads don’t convince me of anything except that I am extremely bored with American politics.
It’s been known to happen. I’ve had my opinion changed, based on what someone else said. Not often, but enough to know it is possible.