Should Each GD Thread Be Completely Independent?

Great Debates
1

Something that annoys me from time to time in Great Debates is when I see one poster (A) gleefully pointing out that some other poster (B) has contradicted a position which he (B) espoused in some other thread. Or else (A) will attack (B) on the grounds that (B) has behaved unreasonably or irrationally in a previous thread.

My argument is that each thread in Great Debates should be treated as a separate entity and the participants in said thread should not be held accountable for their positions or behavior in previous threads.

Arguments in Favor….

1…I believe that a poster has the right, if he so desires, to participate in a debate and present arguments solely for the pleasure of debating. This means that he has the right to argue that chocolate covered boobies are Gods gift to mankind this week and then turn around and argue that chocolate covered boobies are tools of the devil next week. Demanding consistency between threads has the effect of negating this right.

2…I believe that posters have the right to change their minds and their opinions.

3….Appeal to other threads is irrelevant. If poster (B) has presented a strong argument that chocolate covered boobies are tools of the devil and supported this argument with a reasonable chain of evidence, then pointing out that he has, in another thread, argued in favor of chocolate covered boobies only serves to raise questions about (B)s consistency. It in no way weakens his argument or challenges his evidence.

4….Allowing each thread to stand on its own would reduce the number of “…he hit me first…” and “….Oh yeah, well you did it too….” posts, of which we are almost all occasionally guilty, but which don’t serve any useful purpose in advancing the debate.

5……Appeal to other threads makes life hard on all of the other posters who are simply trying to follow the debate. Every time poster (A) claims that poster (B) has somehow contradicted himself or alleges that poster (B) is guilty of misbehavior in another thread, each reader has to decide whether to simply accept Poster (A)s word on the subject or to actually read the other thread in order to see if poster (A) has, perhaps, misrepresented the situation. Since these “other threads” are sometimes multiple pages and are likely to be filled with appeals to other “other threads” which are then filled with appeals themselves, the process of checking can be draining.

Arguments Against……

2

This isn’t Debating 101.
As for your numbered points.

  1. I disagree. While I could very well be wrong, I have never thought of this place as a forum for debating purely for the sake of debating. We can learn debating techniques (I probably have more to learn than most) during the course of our debates, but I don’t think that should be the underlying goal. A mod will likely come along shortly and correct me if I’m mistaken.

  2. They certainly do, but they should then acknowledge that that is what happened.

  3. This seems to be related to point 2 (actually many of your points have a lot of overlap, which I have no problem with). If they formerly held a different opinion, why wouldn’t they be willing to say that they changed their minds, providing reasons for doing so if they so choose?

  4. Yes, I agree it would cut down on that. At the same time I think it would greatly increase the number of evolution, abortion, Israel/Palestine threads, etc., to the point that many posters might tire of rebutting the same arguments over and over and over and over…

  5. I consider appeal to other threads a wonderful tool, which is not always used to point out misbehavior. It is often used to cut down on rehashing old arguments repeatedly.

I would actually agree with your OP subject question, if every poster who wished to start a thread would do a thorough search for existing threads which covered the topic, to see if their points were relevant enough to a thread to be discussed there. Since that doesn’t always happen (I’m probably just as guilty as others), I don’t want all new threads to stand alone.

3

I don’t agree with the OP and here is why not:

Shifting opinion just for the sake of it is equal to trolling. I expect my opposition and my allies to be genuine and to be able to stand for what they posit and forward. Pretended opinions are also much harder to adhere to on such a level that I should hope we aspire to in GD.

That not saying that you can’t play the devils advocate. In a thread on an unrelated topic I found out that the ruling of the SDMB administration is that you may take a devil’s advocate position, but only if you clearly state so - before you go there. Should you have reevaluated your position; one line in the post that clarifies this should do the trick.

Part of the pleasure with a running debate forum is that you get to know your opposition and your allies. It raises the debate level substantially.

There is another issue as well. When the topic is complex ‘stand alone’ threads would mean that you have to start from scratch. In some cases that might be a good idea, but the higher the level of debate the higher the knowledge that you need in order to go in. Sometimes that knowledge just will have to be previous debates on the issue. Such an OP should be fair and link the previous threads so that a new arrival can catch up.

I do however agree that appeal to other threads can be tiring. I would say that the remedy is a link, without a link referencing other instances or debates is senseless. I say that knowing that I have been guilty of that sin (pretty damned recently as well IFIRC).

Sparc

4

I forgot to mention why I have such a problem with point number 1.

If I spend a large amount of time gathering information, sources, statistics, etc., to help inform, rebutt, or otherwise further the debate, and the debater then responds with “Oh, I don’t really believe that, I was just practicing”, it’ll be off to the Pit.

5

Strike first sentence in containing double negative my previous post

Should read; “I don’t agree with the OP and here is why:”

6

Jesus! It’s the wine I had with dinner…

7

Perhaps I’d better do a little clarifying before I get myself banned as a troll…

I agree that the SDMB is not here to provide me with a fun time or to give me practice in debating. Its purpose is to “fight ignorance” etc. etc. But the method that the SDMB uses to fight ignorance is that of providing a place where people can get together and exchange ideas and information while also having a good time.

I believe that, since any good debate, regardless of the motive behind it, involves the organization of ideas and the marshalling of evidence to support those ideas, it serves to fight ignorance.

Trolling would consist of introducing a topic (generally inflammatory) for no other purpose than exciting a reaction (preferably frenzied). What I’m discussing is taking a position about which one either has no opinion or with which one actually disagrees for the purpose of trying to make a strong, or at least reasonable, argument.

Trolling serves no real purpose. Debating a position would inevitably lead to an increased knowledge of the subject and could cause one to change ones opinions or, at the very least, develope a greater understanding of and sympathy for another point of view.

I agree that a poster who has changed his opinion can simply acknowledge that that is the case. But what purpose would this back and forth serve other than to distract from the debate at hand?

Sparc…given your position, would it be acceptable for me to take part in a debate, about which I had no strong opinion, simply because I believed that a particular line of argument was flawed or because I believed that false claims were being made or weak evidence used? If so, would you require me to include some sort of “disclaimer” along the lines of “Although I have no strong opinions on this subject, I feel that…” Wouldn’t this serve to distract from whatever point I was hoping to make?

**

I agree that such a response would be rude and I wouldn’t blame you for heading to the Pit. But let me run my attitude past you. Ideally, I don’t debate against other people. I debate against ideas and arguments. If I presented a strong argument refuting some proposition and the original proposer then said “Oh, I didn’t really mean it…”; I wouldn’t feel that my efforts had been wasted. I would still have refuted the argument.

8

Well of course you may refute partial positions even if you don’t agree with the overall stake. I find myself doing that once in a while, I usually include a disclaimer when I do, not for the sake of the opposition though. It’s in my interest that I make a disclaimer since I know that if I don’t the overall opinion of the side I am arguing for will stick with me. As recent debates re Israel* shows, this evidently doesn’t help with all members. Weaken the argument? I’d say the contrary, the fact that you’re not a blanket supporter of a side, but still ready to stand up for a partial point lends extra power to that point. If you add or rob the point of power will of course depend on your reputation as well, which in turn will depend partially on how consistent you are in your opinions.

As for the rest I gather that zigaretten is mostly talking about being the devil’s advocate and as I said; in my book that’s fine as long as one states it clearly. I can’t say I’m too fond of it, I prefer to debate against the real opinion. As DMC said, this isn’t debating 101, albeit it isn’t the chambers of a national parliament, or the disputation cession of a laurel institution either… but still I prefer to have a whack at testing my stance against someone that really stands at their guns because they believe what they say. I might add something to a debate that I am not actually murderously passionate about the position I take in, but not much, since I find that It’s real hard to muster any energy for that kind of debate, if others can - more power to them. If it is not at all their opinion I’d just appreciate to be told that this is what they’re doing. Personally I just prefer debating stuff that I care about. Ironically enough, debating and rhetoric are on that list.

Sparc

[sub]*no link, I’m tired of that debacle.[/sub]

9

But that’s not the same thing as taking inconsistent positions. It regularly happens in GD that posters will take another Doper to task for bad arguments or false claims, even when the posters fervently agree with the Doper’s position. I would argue, in fact, that criticizing bad arguments in this way is a pretty necessary activity, lest your side be harmed by a loss of credibility.

When a poster does that, it’s up to them as to whether they want to start off the response post with, “while I agree with your basic point, you are wrong about …,” or not.

It often happens here that, when you correct a bad argument by an ally, other posters assume you disagree with the ally. It’s happened to me often enough. But IMNSHO, that’s a problem for the person making the assumption. Too many people think that, if you disagree with an argument for a position, you disagree with the position. That’s not the case.

Sua

10

Sparc…

I’ll be responding to more of what you and DMC had to say, I’m just breaking it up into small bites that I can handle…but a couple of quick points…

“…It’s in my interest that I make a disclaimer since I know that if I don’t the overall opinion of the side I am arguing for will stick with me…”

That’s exactly what I am against. I’m arguing that in this thread, or any future thread, your past opinions and “associations” are completely, totally and 100% irrelevant.

“…I find that It’s real hard to muster any energy for that kind of debate, if others can - more power to them…”

Thats all I ask. I would never ask you to operate on the same motivations as myself. Different strokes for different folks…

“*no link, I’m tired of that debacle.”

Links to other threads are the last thing I would ask for in this thread!

11

We’re only human zigaretten and we can’t isolate the opinion from the person. This is a low interaction social interface, but still you get to know peoples stand after a while. Ask a few members that regularly post in GD these days and I think most will know that I am a rabid federalist and a consistent defender of the EU. Don’t you think that people would be a little surprised if I backed down from that stand, even if it’s only for the sake of debate? I think I’d loose a lot of credibility as well. To boot I’m really glad to have a few brothers and sisters in arms whom I can count on in a debate that touches on that issue, it makes it a lot more fun and slightly more social.

Same goes for the opposition. Someone who is usually on the opposition’s side on a specific issue, whose opinion I know fairly well, and who I respect very much in general fired off a sidewinder in the slightly wrong direction in a thread the other day. Instead of tearing into him like a lion I just asked for clarification and once I got that I saw that it was indeed a point made in haste that wasn’t meant to go in the direction it ended up. Had I not known his usual opinion I would have just refuted him and shown him how untenable his position was, which would have been a waste if time.

Sparc

12

As Sparc noted, many discussions build on previous discussions. If every discussion began at ground zero, each post would need to be several thousand words long to stake out each person’s position relative to that individual thread.

Once the positions and perspectives of various posters have been laid out, we save ourselves a lot of unnecessary typing (and tiresome reading on the part of our audience) by making shorthand references to previous discussions. If each thread needed to be treated as an isolated debate, we could not rely on that shorthand and no one would have the time to actually post.

We already have the ability to play devil’s advocate or to “change sides” provided we acknowledge that we are doing so.
.

There is a related type of issue that I agree we should treat independently. It happens with more frequency than I enjoy watching that, in a vigorous discussion of the use of cork-plugged canteens vs canteens with metal screw-on lids from the early 20th century, one poster will note that his or her opponent made a grievous error in a previous discussion as to the relevance of chintz in the manufacture of furniture during the Regency Period. That person will then post “Given your complete failure to recognize the use of early 19th century calico when it has been presented with citations, you can hardly expect us to accept anything you say regarding cork since you are clearly incapable of informed discussion.” That comment is out of line.

It is quite possible that a person may be totally wrong-headed on one subject while actually understanding another.

Attacking a poster for remarks made on separate subjects is close to ad hominem argumentation and does nothing but rile up the anger without furthering the discussion. I’d just as soon see a lot less of that. Calling for people who take specific sides on long-running and recurring subjects to maintain consistency (or clearly to note when they are changing their views or playing devil’s advocate) is a legitimate way to keep the actual exchange of ideas moving.

13

Cant we all just get along?

fnord

14

Since I fear that my previous posts might have given the impression that I think that it is natural and OK to do this; I just wanted to state clearly that I agree fully with Tom here. Given the incredible width of the subject matters we deal with here, judging a member for their lack of knowledge in one area and transposing that to another is not fair. Even if one can’t help but to pass the judgment, it is absolutely unacceptable to bring it into debate as an argument, in fact it is more than an ad hominem since it verges on a strawman or a red herring (if the topic is vaguely connected).

Sparc

15

“Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” you know? I can accept people changing their positions, and I don’t think they owe anyone an explanation as to why they now find the opposing argument stronger.

I do agree strenuously with the notion that general issue, “big picture” debates ought to be reduced in number rather than increased. So I can understand this. I think the key is to refer people to those “big picture” threads when they are looking into larger issues, without encouraging people to hold the posters in that thread to their stated positions.

I wouldn’t be so hard on people stating a position they do not hold. I don’t consider it trolling at all. If somebody makes a statement in support of an ultimate position in which you agree, you might nonetheless wish to point out common objections from the other side. Either you see someone eventually work past those objections, strengthening your original position, or you see a nuance in those objections that cannot be overcome and you decide to change positions.

Importantly, I don’t think you should be obligated to make clear your position. If you decide to raise some objections to an argument in favor of gun control, but you are in fact in favor of gun control yourself, why should you be obliged to make note of that? Can’t we explore issues apart from the people voicing the positions on those issues?

16

[nitpick]Just to be anal, the full quote is, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Not just consistency, per se. As Emily Litella was so fond of saying, “That’s very different!”

A better quote is the one from Walt Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”[/nitpick]

17

I am all for keeping an open mind and changing it when needed. Telling the people you talk to on a regular basis when you do so does add some sanity to the conversation though, IMO at least.

By the consensus on the troll label it is though. It’s not a phenomena that has arisen with the Internet and argumentum per argumentum has always been considered a most offensive and useless form of rhetoric. What’s the point of debating for the sake of debate, save to hone ones debating skills? That gets us back to what DMC said; this is not debate 101.

I don’t think you can obligate anyone to do that as I noted earlier. Personally I like to do it, because I like to be clear in my stance so that people know what opinion they are debating against. Let us say that I say that I think the death penalty at the Nuremberg trials was justified. Doesn’t it add more depth to my position if I also add that generally speaking I am opposed to the death penalty?

Not only that, it avoids me getting into the death penalty debate overall and enables me to focus on the Nuremberg trials, as I should desire. If someone in the next step starts questioning the morality of the DP in general, my position in that respect is already clear and I can immediately put it into relation with the question at hand. Boilerplates and disclaimers are just practical aids to keep the debate sane if you ask me.

All that being said there is a certain relationship in this to what Tom brought in, which I think is important to consider. When someone attacks a specific and very precise point of argument it is a logical fallacy to equate that with any opinion on the overall topic. It’s simple non sequitor, but since I know about that risk I believe that it’s in my interest as bringer of the argument to not open up to that risk, hence it is once again practical to state position when arguing against specific points that would normally affront my overall position.

Sparc

18

Sorry RexDart, I should have noted that all quotes where from you. It’s a little early in the morning here.

19

Honing ones’ debate skills isn’t really what it’s doing. Presenting counterarguments, even if you don’t agree with them, could develop new ideas on how to defeat those counterarguments or evaluate their strength. This is an enlightening process that is in fact substantive, not merely procedural. Now the question is, can you only present for evaluation counterarguments you happen to agree with? If so, then properly exploring an issue seems to be limited by which people happen to choose to involve themselves in the thread. That seems a stark limitation on discussion. So I think it might come down to how you present them.

Suppose poster A makes the post “I think conceal&carry weapon laws help prevent crime.” Now the counterargument is that they also create some dangerous situations. If I am overall in favor of conceal&carry, but nonetheless want to learn how others with the position respond to that counteragument, do I need to phrase that post “Well, up front I will inform you all that I am in favor of conceal&carry, but I have heard a counterargument that these laws can also create dangerous situations,” to avoid being called a troll? If I instead read the first post and respond with, “Conceal&carry laws also create dangerous situations, how would you respond to that point,” even though I am ultimately in favor of such laws, this would be considered trolling? I don’t see how.

As I understand it, a troll is someone who expounds an extreme or outlandish opinion, disguising it as his own sincere opinion in order to generate genuine response.

20

A couple of people have made the point that “my system” would result in more “hot topic” threads about abortion, gun control, etc. The suggestion is made that referencing past threads keeps these threads to a minimum and provides a quick shorthand method of dealing with arguments that have been used before.

I usually avoid these particular debates because they are already, IMHO, tedious. So I might make a fool of myself here, but…

Nothing, and I do mean nothing, is going to stop people from opening new threads on these topics since, as DMC pointed out, almost nobody uses the Search function for its intended purpose (me included). But this is not entirely a bad thing. Given that people do, in fact, want to debate these issues; aren’t several threads preferable to one long 500 page thread? I know I stay away from any thread that has reached even three pages.

In fact, I feel that many of the longer threads that are already out there would be more workable, as in easier to follow along and participate in, if they were broken down into multiple threads themselves. We’ve all seen it a thousand times; an OP makes one simple proposal, but the thread quickly developes into nine different arguments over eleven different ideas; none of which has anything to do with the original OP, generally speaking.

In addition…think about this. Hopefully the SDMB will still be here 20 years from now. Will it really be fair to ask some bright-eyed bushy-tailed young newbie to wade through 20 years worth of the kind of garbage that old farts like me are presently churning out just as fast as our little fingers can fly before they are allowed to open the simplest debate on some issue which, to them at least, seems fresh and new and urgent and Hey!, maybe they’ll even resolve this issue and make the World a better place? Heck, this is already a problem and the SDMB has only been around for ??? years.

As for using reference to past threads as a shorthand method to deal with arguments that have been made before, I disagree that this is a good thing. In practise, it forces those who are trying to follow the new thread to jump back and forth between threads. They, and the new OP, must try to decipher just exactly which posts in the old thread are pertinent to the new discussion and which posts the person who refered the thread believes to be pertinent. These are not necessarily the same thing.

Also…by refering to older threads you create a situation where the new OP is forced to defend an older OP which may be subtly different than his own. But this subtle difference may make the older OP significantly weaker. The new OP is also saddled with any lame arguments and questionable evidence that has been used in the past. True, the new OP can point out the differences in his position and disassociate himself from any arguments or positions with which he disagrees, but I feel that it’s unfair to place that sort of burden on him. And the net effect of the reference is simply to complicate and distract from the debate at hand.

I believe that it is preferable to start each debate completely from scratch. True, you may feel like “Hell, I’ve been down that road before and no way am I gonna go through that argument again!” but thats OK, there will always be plenty of other posters, who haven’t been there before, who will enjoy arguing the whole issue again.

Perhaps I should point out that my attitude depends on a belief that these “hot topic” issues can never really be settled. There are no definative answers to questions about abortion, gun control, etc; there are only beliefs and opinions. And that means that they will be debated for years to come and rightly so.

SuaSponte… I give up…IMNSHO?