What's the point of forcing polls on GD topics into IMHO?

[CarnalK]

@Czarcasm

In what way does the number of people who agree or disagree with your viewpoint bolster your argument, especially if the people are anonymous?
Poster #1-“According to the scientific studies I’ve linked to, my position is right.”
Poster #2-“According to 113 anonymous posters I’ve never met, my position is right!”

You sure have a narrow imagination about poll subjects. How about “California Dopers: How will you vote on prop 13? Feel free to post your reasoning.” You also seem to be under the delusion that many GD arguments have some unshakable scientific truth at their core. And why is the number of people voting a certain way in a poll required to bolster anyone’s argument? Maybe the polling Doper is simply curious about the spread of opinion. Erasmus Darwin also makes good points.

In total, it seems you are just convinced that polls are silly and simply shouldn’t be granted the “high status” of being allowed in GD. Kind of strange, imho.

[Czarcasm]

@CarnalK

In total, it seems you are just convinced that polls are silly and simply shouldn’t be granted the “high status” of being allowed in GD. Kind of strange, imho.

I don’t seem to recall using the word “silly”, and I have never said that polls aren’t “high-status” enough for Great Debates. In total, it seems as if someone has a case of "In Other Words"itis. It is just my personal opinion that the majority of polls that took place in IMHO just weren’t advanced enough to have a place in Great Debates, which is why I directed people who insisted on going beyond giving their opinion to debating the positions of others on matters best suited for Great Debates to take it to Great Debates. While there probably were some polls started that might have been refined enough to actually advance debate, at that time I was restricted as to what my options were.

[CarnalK]

@Czarcasm

@CarnalK

In total, it seems you are just convinced that polls are silly and simply shouldn’t be granted the “high status” of being allowed in GD. Kind of strange, imho.

I don’t seem to recall using the word “silly”, and I have never said that polls aren’t “high-status” enough for Great Debates. In total, it seems as if someone has a case of "In Other Words"itis. It is just my personal opinion that the majority of polls that took place in IMHO just weren’t advanced enough to have a place in Great Debates, which is why I directed people who insisted on going beyond giving their opinion to debating the positions of others on matters best suited for Great Debates to take it to Great Debates. While there probably were some polls started that might have been refined enough to actually advance debate, at that time I was restricted as to what my options were.

OK, so “high status” is too much, but you deem the majority to be not “advanced enough” for GD. So you are basically saying that a minority was advanced enough? Or is that putting words in your mouth too?

[Czarcasm]

@CarnalK

@Czarcasm

I don’t seem to recall using the word “silly”, and I have never said that polls aren’t “high-status” enough for Great Debates. In total, it seems as if someone has a case of "In Other Words"itis. It is just my personal opinion that the majority of polls that took place in IMHO just weren’t advanced enough to have a place in Great Debates, which is why I directed people who insisted on going beyond giving their opinion to debating the positions of others on matters best suited for Great Debates to take it to Great Debates. While there probably were some polls started that might have been refined enough to actually advance debate, at that time I was restricted as to what my options were.

OK, so “high status” is too much, but you deem the majority to be not “advanced enough” for GD. So you are basically saying that a minority was advanced enough? Or is that putting words in your mouth too?

Rather than deal in hypotheticals, why don’t you point out a poll in IMHO that might have advanced debate if it were placed in Great Debates instead?

[CarnalK]

@Czarcasm

@CarnalK

OK, so “high status” is too much, but you deem the majority to be not “advanced enough” for GD. So you are basically saying that a minority was advanced enough? Or is that putting words in your mouth too?

Rather than deal in hypotheticals, why don’t you point out a poll in IMHO that might have advanced debate if it were placed in Great Debates instead?

I’m not dealing in hypotheticals. I was dealing with the words you posted. I’m not even sure what the heck you mean by “advanced enough” since you got all prickly about “high status”.

[Czarcasm]

Rather than debate the nuances of words, I think it would be more fitting to stay on topic, don’t you? Otherwise, it’s equivalent to getting bogged down in shoelace descriptions in a thread about who the fastest man in the world is. Are there specific examples of polls that might have been better suited in Great Debates?

[CarnalK]

@Czarcasm

Rather than debate the nuances of words, I think it would be more fitting to stay on topic, don’t you? Otherwise, it’s equivalent to getting bogged down in shoelace descriptions in a thread about who the fastest man in the world is. Are there specific examples of polls that might have been better suited in Great Debates?

Oh I was on topic. You said the “majority” of polls wouldn’t be useful in GD, it pretty much implies that a minority would. Despite that you seem content to continue dancing around and pretend there are no GD worthy ones. I think I’m done with your semantics/nitpicking party.

[Czarcasm]

“Not useful” and “not worthy” are “not equal”.

[Czarcasm]

@Erasmus_Darwin

@Czarcasm

In what way does the number of people who agree or disagree with your viewpoint bolster your argument, especially if the people are anonymous?

There’s more to polling than popularity dickwaving. Understanding where other people’s heads are at is a good starting point for trying to debate with them, especially if you’re interested in swaying them over to your side.

If most people already mostly agree with your position, you can focus on the nuances and skip over a lot of redundant preaching to the choir. Conversely, if a lot of people disagree with a fundamental premise of the position, the debate can focus on more basic issues.

Could you point out a poll in IMHO that could serve as your example?