Padabe, Yes the debates are largely for lurkers

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@NinetyWt

I disagree with doing away with the forum; it provides a place for that kind of thing, so that it doesn’t bleed over (too much) into the other forums.

I don’t know that I agree that GD is helpful solely to ‘the lurkers’; I have seen some discussions where posters’ opinons have changed as a result of the arguments in the thread. But I do get what you’re saying in the OP.

I’ve certainly had my opinion changed by some of the GD. Most of those debates I didn’t participate in (much) and usually I think I only changed my mind later after some more thinking. But aside from the neat stuff on GQ, GD is the main reason for me to read the board; it’s helpful to see all the logic and rhetoric - even if I don’t agree it certainly helps me think.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@padabe

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.

Well, the thing is, many people aren’t up-to-date or haven’t really considered the pros and cons of many of the debates - even if they do have an opinion on it - in the same way that many people aren’t up-to-date, or all that knowledgable on “objective” subjects - that’s the whole reason GQ exists. I certainly learned a lot from reading and participating in both. Even if a lot of the arguments seem to be semantic games, recognizing semantic games is a useful skill