# What rule changes would you propose to strengthen/improve GD? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 25, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440 "2010-01-25T23:20:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/141 "2011-07-05T14:49:15Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I believe I adequately stated an admission that I crossed the line into abuse of the doctrine. **Shodan** did not participate in the thread and I was explaining the situation to him. > [@](#): > > It seems there is some support of the idea, and rather than protest an abusive thread by refusing to cite, I am adopting the view that I should only debate with people who are not known for debating unfairly. If you take it to an extreme, I would close your threads or warn you for refusing to cite your arguments, so I am glad you won’t do that again. But I am trying to tell you that your view of “debating unfairly” was skewed. It’s not just that you overused the common knowledge claim, it’s that you were hostile to almost everyone who requested a cite and kept calling them “obstructionists” when they would not take your statements at face value. If you take that attitude into other threads, they will become as unproductive as the last few pages of the gay marriage thread. > [@](#): > > You are still trying to win the debate itself in which some problems arose I am not interested in resuming the debate, and we’re in the wrong forum for it. I am trying to make clear to you what some of the problems were in that thread. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/142 "2011-07-05T14:54:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, that does happen. Some people get argumentative and demand cites for obvious things, or for things that clearly cannot be cited - once in a while you’ll see someone demand a cite for the entire debate topic. But as you may be able to see from the next couple of sentences in my post, that’s not what happened in that thread. The problem was that **David42** was asked to support some assertions of fact and he treated almost every single request for a cite as if it were a frivolous waste of his time. His starting point of view, from what I could tell, was that everybody knew he was right and wouldn’t own up to it. That obviously left him frustrated and did not help the discussion. In point of fact, **David42** was asked to substantiate assertions like this one: > That one was pretty central to his argument in the thread. When asked for a cite, he said he didn’t have to because it was common knowledge. At least twice, he told posters to just ask three people for their opinions IRL instead of posting a cite. He said elsewhere that divorce rates increased after the introduction of no-fault divorces, and I can believe that. But “every time we change marriage a little bit divorce rates go up” is a broader and more specific claim that demands a cite, and he specifically asserted that lots of studies supported his opinion. But instead of posting links to the studies, he told people to ask their friends if it was true. I suggested that you ask others as a good faith effort that you really do not know. There are legitimately people who do not know something because they just missed it, but that does not make their lack of knowledge the standard. I also said I would take your word for it. We can have civil discourse or not, that is what my issue is about. NOW you claim knowing about divorce rates, and you or anyone else could have helped derail five to ten pages of nonsense by at least partial conceding that some of what I said was known by almost everyone and THEN asking me for cites to fill the gaps, but that wouldn’t have helped your position in the debate, and that’s why no one said, “It’s true, we do all know about some of this at least.” but if a bunch of nonsense is preferable… ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/143 "2011-07-05T15:04:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Shodan** did not participate in the thread and I was explaining the situation to him.. And therefore it is perfectly reasonable to pick a claim where I abused and admitted abusing the claim of common knowledge. My argument is not that common knowledge is a valid response to anything at all. You could have easily picked rising divorce rates as the sample. > [@Marley23](#): > > \*\*If you take it to an extreme, I would close your threads or warn you for refusing to cite your arguments, so I am glad you won’t do that again. But I am trying to tell you that your view of “debating unfairly” was skewed. It’s not just that you overused the common knowledge claim, it’s that you were hostile to almost everyone who requested a cite and kept calling them “obstructionists” when they would not take your statements at face value. If you take that attitude into other threads, they will become as unproductive as the last few pages of the gay marriage thread.. That was _after_ complaints were made and IT SEEMED, since the behavior was getting repeated, nothing was done. Its not talking to the abusers I will try to avoid, but I am not promising that there will not be times to legitimately claim a cite is not needed. But if I do a good job selecting who I debate with, that shouldn’t be a problem. > [@Marley23](#): > > \*\*I am not interested in resuming the debate, and we’re in the wrong forum for it. I am trying to make clear to you what some of the problems were in that thread. Then let’s drop the night before last instead of trying to prove how unreasonable I was. I admitted getting to that point. Please. You do accept good faith apologies, right? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/144 "2011-07-05T15:08:20Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > Follow your own advice and let the subject drop. You don’t need to get the last word in. You’re right it does get tiresome. I have seen a fair sampling now of opinions, most agree to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/145 "2011-07-05T15:16:39Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > “Light radiating between 440 and 490 nanometers, at a frequency of 610 to 680 terahertz, or anything that generally radiates light mostly in that range. Also, web color #0000FF, or RGB 0,0,255, or colors visually close to that specific color.” > > It’s not hard to define blue. Words do have meaning. Here, try this one. “The condition in which someone else’s happiness comes before your own.” And I would define blue if the debate were directly relevant to exactly what blue is, but not if its obstructionist like in “prove the sky is blue.” The definition of love is a seriously interesting question. Perhaps a thread on it would be fun. “The condition in which someone else’s happiness comes before your own,” might describe a lot of things, and might leave part of a necessary quality of love out. Plenty of people claim love but then act selfishly, and given the subjective nature of the question… But I am not trying to hijack either organically or non-organically, so I will save it for an appropriate time. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/146 "2011-07-05T15:18:37Z")
**David42** , I accept your apology. The problem is that I don’t think you understand what happened in the thread. In Great Debates, you are expected to produce cites to support your arguments. It’s the defining characteristic of the forum. It’s true that people can go overboard with it, but there were few or no excessive requests for cites in that thread. > [@David42](#): > > I suggested that you ask others as a good faith effort that you really do not know. There are legitimately people who do not know something because they just missed it, but that does not make their lack of knowledge the standard. I also said I would take your word for it. In the future, I don’t think you should try this tactic again. In the best case, it’s a waste of time that is easily circumvented by lying, so it’s not going to be effective anyway. > [@](#): > > NOW you claim knowing about divorce rates, and you or anyone else could have helped derail five to ten pages of nonsense by at least partial conceding that some of what I said was known by almost everyone and THEN asking me for cites to fill the gaps At least one poster in the thread _did_ concede that you were right about divorce rates going up since the advent of no-fault divorces - he said it was obvious that making divorce easier would make divorces more common. That would have been an opportune time to post your cite if you had one. It would have saved everyone a lot of time and it would have made your argument look much stronger. If you read this line, you will see you made a much larger claim than the one about no-fault divorces: “_Boatloads of studies_ show that _every_ time we change marriage _a little bit_ divorce rates go up.” People were not denying the point about no-fault divorce. You made a bigger claim than that, and people here read closely. I don’t think you acknowledged that the no-fault divorce claim only partially supported this contention. The bottom line is that if someone asks you to cite an argument, the right thing to do is almost always to just post the cite. Sometimes people get unreasonable, but if you comply with the reasonable requests, it will become clear when people are not being reasonable and it won’t hurt your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/147 "2011-07-05T18:21:20Z")
Opinions and anecdotes are all well and good, but they are not facts. For instance, I got pregnant three times in two years. Using four different types of birth control (I used contraceptive foam and condoms together, her name is Lisa). My sister got pregnant twice, on two different kinds of birth control. My aunts and grandmother also had birth control failures. Does this mean that birth control frequently fails, in the general population? No, it just means that women in my mother’s side of the family tend to get pregnant easily. This wasn’t all user error, as with each woman, at least one pregnancy happened when an IUD was in place. And yes, my grandmother was a human beta tester of IUDs. For most women, birth control is much more reliable. But if you listened to the anecdotes around the kitchen table, you’d think that the various methods of birth control were much less effective. So, when asked for a cite, it’s up to the person making the claim to provide a link to FACTS. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/148 "2011-07-05T18:28:25Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > it just means that women in my mother’s side of the family tend to get pregnant easily. Or, you know, they’re really, really easy. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/149 "2011-07-05T19:50:00Z")
In my case, at least, I’m not easy. Hell, I’ve been married for 34 years now. I’ve had sex with exactly two men in my lifetime…and I was a teenager in the 70s. It’s not like my husband and I go at it like bunnies, either. Knowing my female relatives, well, ONE aunt is (or rather was) easy. The rest of us are faithful, as far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/150 "2011-07-05T19:53:40Z")
That was a joke. ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/151 "2011-07-05T20:14:40Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > I’ve had sex with exactly two men in my lifetime… Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/152 "2011-07-05T20:17:35Z")
The problem isn’t that people were demanding cites for common knowledge, it’s that what David42 was presenting as common knowledge–that gays can’t have children–isn’t common knowledge. In fact it’s false. Gays have kids all the time: through adoption, surrogacy, etc. At best I think he was disingenuously trying to conflate the fact that gays can’t have kids through fucking each other with their ability to have children at all. But no one was argung that a same sex sex act could produce a fetus. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/153 "2011-07-06T00:47:30Z")
And that’s part of what going for cites is _for,_- what one may think is common knowledge often is neither common nor knowledge. The ignorance you fight may be your own. If you’re not even open to the possibility, then you’re not debating, you’re just ranting. I’d still like to see what his evidence is that the Bible relates factual history more than occasionally. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/154 "2011-07-06T01:58:11Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > The problem isn’t that people were demanding cites for common knowledge, it’s that what David42 was presenting as common knowledge–that gays can’t have children–isn’t common knowledge. In fact it’s false. Gays have kids all the time: through adoption, surrogacy, etc. At best I think he was disingenuously trying to conflate the fact that gays can’t have kids through fucking each other with their ability to have children at all. But no one was argung that a same sex sex act could produce a fetus. He didn’t say gays couldn’t have kids – he was saying that “gay community” was encouraging adoption for political reasons. Not because, you know, they wanted to be parents. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/155 "2011-07-06T02:04:28Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > He didn’t say gays couldn’t have kids – he was saying that “gay community” was encouraging adoption for political reasons. Not because, you know, they wanted to be parents. You may be right, I couldn’t stomach reading that whole thread in detail. But if you are that makes his complaint even more wrongheaded. What you just posted isn’t common knowledge at all. In fact it’s conspiracy theory. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/156 "2011-07-06T02:09:25Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > He didn’t say gays couldn’t have kids – he was saying that “gay community” was encouraging adoption for political reasons. Not because, you know, they wanted to be parents. Oddly, he actually did say gays couldn’t have kids. When pressed, he then qualified that they could only have kids “artificially”, so that it didn’t count. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13979402&postcount=97](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13979402&postcount=97)". ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/157 "2011-07-06T04:12:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Improve GD? Threads like [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=614020) should be closed as soon as reported. What are you talking about? That was the best thread around here I’ve seen in a while. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/158 "2011-07-06T15:56:41Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Oddly, he actually did say gays couldn’t have kids. When pressed, he then qualified that they could only have kids “artificially”, so that it didn’t count. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13979402&postcount=97](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13979402&postcount=97)". I guess I missed that part, or else I forgot about it. [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13980266&postcount=115) was the one I was referring to: > [@](#): > > There have been calls in the gay literature for all gay couples to adopt so that they can prove their value as families. This is wrong. No one should ever adopt a child for any reason other than the child’s best interest. Shoving kids around on a social chessboard as pawns pisses me the hell off. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/159 "2011-07-06T16:45:41Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/160 "2011-08-13T03:13:14Z")
> [@bryan ekers](#): > > i don’t see how new rules would help improve the existing gd, which i like just fine, though i support the idea of a new more-strictly-moderated gd2 forum, as ahunter3 proposes. > > Heck, if anything, i’d like gd to be slightly _more_ rough’n’tumble. rnt u k? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440.md?page=9)