Recently, in at least two threads, Danielinthewolvesden has proclaimed that if an opposing viewpoint can’t be found, a question on matters of religion do NOT belong in Great Debates. Is this a new policy that I am unaware of?
The two theads are here (“Where is the Great Debate here?”) and here(“that there might be a few, or even scads of them thatsometimes or even often post on the SDMB. But-NONE of them are “debating” with you folks”)
Just wanted to get an official ruling since he seems so certain about this.
Well, just off the top of my head, I’d have to say, “How would you find out whether there IS an opposing viewpoint, without posting a thread to ask?” What’s he saying, that if nobody turns up to argue with you, the moderator ought to move it over to GQ? I think Darwinian Selection already takes care of the problem–the fittest Great Debate threads survive at the top of the page, while the less fit are weeded out of the debate gene pool and slide off to the Archives.
I don’t think it’s an official policy, don’t sweat it. “Debate” at the SDMB doesn’t always have to mean “back and forth”, with scoring and judges and stuff; sometimes it can just mean “talk about” or “discuss”.
P.S. You can abbreviate it as Daniel~, it’s faster.
I think you are missing the point by asking the question in this forum. I don’t think DITWD meant to say that you should not post such questions in GD as a matter of SDMB policy. Merely that it is pointless to have a “debate” when the other side is a strawman invented by yourself. And to the extent that such a “debate” is being conducted for the sole purpose of trashing the other side (with them absent) it is meanspirited.
Which is not to say that I necessarily agree with him as regards to your specific thread. But it any event, I don’t think he was basing his objections on a concern for SDMB rules, as mentioned.
Izzy is correct (as usual). I did not mean it was against the rules per se (altho it sorta fails to mean the general guidelines). But that after a while it become more of a “beat the horse” and not a 'debate" at all. The Op in question was certainly a legit attampt to start a debate (except for the fact that that subject has been done SOOOO many times)- but after a while of the “pro” side not showing up- it ceased to look like a debate. So- was there anything wrond with the OP being started? (IMHO)- well except the fact the Op has been done a lot- no. But SOME folks there (and this is not a dig at you, fenris) seemed to decide it was a “pummel the straw man thread” when they got no opposition. Which is sorta unfair.
In the “mormon” thread, however- i could not spot a “debate”. It seems more like a “rant” (=PIT) or a question (=GQ). Sometimes, however, GD gets anything with a religous tone. So, here, i was attempting nor so much to stop the thread, but to distill a real GD out of the OP. Sometime a thread will start in GD that HAS no debate- but a good one comes out of it. Oftimes, when someone asks that very question “exactly what is the GD here?” someone distills one out of the OP, or the Mods move it- helps define what we are dicussing/debating.
