Magnolia how about a moderated debate section? - VOTE NOW!!!

[Wiccan Warrior Alex]

One of the keys to good debates are rules. We would do well to view standard debate rules and adapt them
to our purpose.

One of the main points is that the debate motion (the initial issue) and rebuttal should be limited in size (or number of words)

That each point made for the motion and rebuttal should contain new information and no merely repeat, over and over, the same thing.

Rebuttal is vital in any competitive speech. Any argument left unchallenged is allowed to stand. Rebuttal basically involves pulling the opposing sides argument apart and exposing its weak points. However don't forget to make your own argument and ideally use that to rebutt.

You don't have to be a genius for facts and figures to do well. If you can remember an example, or fact which you researched, to back up your argument use it. However if you get stuck and think that a fact, figure or example is needed and you don't have one, try making one up. It can be risky if you get caught by a member of the opposing side who actually knows what they are talking about (it can be painful, believe me) but it can be very effective if you get away with it. This is not, however, a replacement for good research, only a fall back if you're in trouble.

Debate isn't nicey nice and there will be people who get heated in a debate. But there is no name calling. One rebutts the motion, not the person who makes the motion. Therein lies the difference.

Check out debate rules for debate teams to get a better understanding of how debates are run. Naturally, these rules would require some adaptations to fit into a forum such as this, but re-working the rules for that purpose could be a grand idea. The mods would delete anything that did not meet debate criteria.

Great, Great Idea Killa !!!

[Ashino Tsume roshi]

Reluctantly, I have voted "No". And I disagree with you Alex for the first time in many years and for the very first time. Its not that I think normal "live' debating rules are bad. Using those rules, I lead several different debating teams in college, and only lost once. But using that venue...

1. There were a prechosen group of people
2. The same number of people on both sides of the issue
3. The debates had to be very strictly focussed, so there was no room for person comments or asides, that would not warrant an etire thread.
4. There were 2 sets of judges. Chosen judges and "the crowd"
5. And quite often, the topic (s) were chosen by professors or people disconnected from really knowing the debate personnel themselves.

Finally, I am of the opinion that SOcratic Dialog asshown in Plato's Republic would not have been able to survive the specific debating rules written in the same context of Robert's Rules of Order (which is a really good book for many things, but not for Socratic Debate. The only rules in Socratic Debate are a general sense of mutual respect predicated upon a general sense of "being adult" and a willingness to respect other peoples' feelings without (at te same time) honoring these feelings as Truth.

The problem with the famous statement "We can all agree to disagree" is quite simple - It ends the entire Arguement. Next, we should ask: "What does the word 'Arguement' mean?"

Main Entry: ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈär-gyə-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete an outward sign indication
2 a a reason given in proof or rebuttal b discourse intended to persuade
3 a the act or process of arguing argumentation b a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c quarrel, disagreement
4 an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5 the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c amplitude 4


Thus, an arguement is not something that is ugly. Although an arguement may turn ugly. I see very little discussion about people being nasty to one another, or ranking them down, or humiating another person (seulement un peu).

What I do see, is various statements about:
1.People always being right
2.People not listening to others opinions
3.People being afraid to express themselves because someone might say "You are wrong"
4.People connecting someone's statement to something unrelated (.e. Apollo & paedaphilia)
5.People saying "I simply won't participate in this."

And so on. In a classic debate at a University or whatever. Nonw of these reasons hold any water - no value at all. In the case of # 4, someone who did this would be either highly criticized or thrown out of the debate, or their entire side would be censured and the debate automaically given to the "other" side.

My personal opinion is that all this is quite childish and is based upon people having been brought up in environments of overwhelming conformity - whatever that conformity is.

Many people find "groupthink" to be offensive. I do not. But I do think, tat participating in realms of "groupthink" is a complete waste of my time, and so will not waste my time, but I do believe I should have the courtesy to express myself analytically and without any barbs. In the direction this is going. If reached by a majority vote or any other means, I simply will never participate in it at all. And for some that is probably a relief and I can feel the silence already of "Who Cares?"....Well, one person who is an experienced and thoughtful adult did, but as of now I no longer do.

Caiyros

[Lampropeltis]

I voted yes, but with strong reservations.

My thought is it should be only visible to those logged in (or preferably, logged in with tenure).

96% of the time, this forum is lovely. 4% of the time... duck and cover. :eeek::

If a normal thread veers into an off-topic debate, the debate part (so long as it's passably civil) can be surgically removed and dropped into the debate forum. If people want to talk about contentious issues, they can be discussed there. If people want to talk about philosophical issues that could be contentious, they could also go there. And as a result, it may keep the rest of the forum somewhat civil.

I propose the debate forum be named "The Colosseum". :crazy:

I have a major pet peeve about some online debates. Many people (I mean in general more than here) have the concept that if the other person shuts up, they win. So if someone acts bat s*** crazy, listens to nothing, resorts to ad hominem attacks and the other person realizes the first person is out of their gourd and backs away, the first person thinks they win because they get the last word in. A long time ago before I learned to avoid (heated) internet debates, I dealt with someone whose main point was claiming that I was lying about the number of pages in my dictionary. :facepalm::

If several courageous (and willing, not just dutiful) moderators are found and some sort of rules established that can keep things semi-clean, it might add to the forum. If not, then debates will just have to chill in various blogs and random areas.

[Ashino Tsume roshi]

I voted yes, but with strong reservations.
COMMENTS IN LINE
My thought is it should be only visible to those logged in (or preferably, logged in with tenure).
Logged in yes.
96% of the time, this forum is lovely. 4% of the time... duck and cover. :eeek::

If a normal thread veers into an off-topic debate, the debate part (so long as it's passably civil) can be surgically removed and dropped into the debate forum. If people want to talk about contentious issues, they can be discussed there. If people want to talk about philosophical issues that could be contentious, they could also go there. And as a result, it may keep the rest of the forum somewhat civil.
Disagree...debate should be open to all...if someone starts humiating another and does apologize (I have been there with 4 people being disgustingly insulting to me and the old timers know all about this..so I won't go into it.) Civility & Adult Behaviour are key.

I propose the debate forum be named "The Colosseum". :crazy:
Oddly I thought of that as well, but we already have the coloseum on Utube where you can watch disgusting and hideous torure or animals and "simulated rape (that looks damn real to me)...so No...on that one...


I have a major pet peeve about some online debates. Many people (I mean in general more than here) have the concept that if the other person shuts up, they win. So if someone acts bat s*** crazy, listens to nothing, resorts to ad hominem attacks and the other person realizes the first person is out of their gourd and backs away, the first person thinks they win because they get the last word in. A long time ago before I learned to avoid (heated) internet debates, I dealt with someone whose main point was claiming that I was lying about the number of pages in my dictionary. :facepalm::

If several courageous (and willing, not just dutiful) moderators are found and some sort of rules established that can keep things semi-clean, it might add to the forum. If not, then debates will just have to chill in various blogs and random areas.

People should acquaint themselves with Miss Manners Book of Etequette and Plato's Republic. Then they will know everything the need to know...."Ah but thats a lot of reading...blah, blah...etc, etc....Well, cry me a river....are we all that lazy? I think not..."Well I don't have the time." Make time. Very simple - How much do we want something great? And are we willing to do a little extra work?

Personally, I think myself and everyone else is increasing thir learning curve by having this prolonged discussion.

Caiyros

[Killa]

Cairyos out of curiousity under what conditions were you actually in favor of a Debate/Belief section? I think there should be a compromise to fit everyone's standards, but for me the whole point of adressing the "Hostility" issue was to take care of hijacking and nothing else.

[Ashino Tsume roshi]

Cairyos out of curiousity under what conditions were you actually in favor of a Debate/Belief section? I think there should be a compromise to fit everyone's standards, but for me the whole point of adressing the "Hostility" issue was to take care of hijacking and nothing else.

IFirst of all, please know that I am not being hostile. I am simply disagreeing on certain points. What I have agrred upon is as follows:

1. There being a moderator factor, but defined as follows. Overt nastiness to be removed from anyth thread at any time. Overt nastiness includes: Making fun of anyone where there is no doubt that it is pure nastiness. will use examples that have been used on me (long ago in a galaxy far away) so as not to embarass anyone else. "Poor Caiyros, he is his mother's baby" - said after I had praised my deceased mother for educating me in music, fine arts, and witchcraft. Being called "Forrest Gump". Being told outright that several of my spirits would be stolen from me. Being psychically attacked about 5 times. (what a joke! But still irritating as h*ll). Also, suppose a moderator is chosen who favors one side or person over the other. It has happened and my friends also attacked. And please no discussion on this now. All is well with me..So please don't get into this as a side isue. I am merely saying that, yes there is really nastiness out there in the cyber world. And at some point it will show up everywhere. As I mentioned earlier, some of this I have seen on Utube and simply could not believe what I saw and the number of "hits" on the sites. I will not go into it here, as it will derail what I am trying to say.

So, in short - Nastiness, Name Calling, Personal Attack in any form is to be banned and removed..but this is already a rule on the CH Forum, so it could be repeated but it is nothing new.

The Philosophical problem (Philosophy = "the study of life itself using as much wisdom as we can gather") is how do we:
1. Keep Kindness & Caring alive within what we say & do.
2. When misinterpreted, how do we re-explain?
3. When we misinterprete someone else how do we clear it up without embarassing the other person or ourselves?
4. How do we keep the basic topic clear?
5. How do we assure others that, in those cases where we, ourselves, totally disagree with others, that it is all right to do so and that no personal or nasty garbage is attached to the disagreement? I wonder if there is one clear answer to these, but I do think, that when a person feels hurrt they simply say so, either in a PM or on-line, and then a simple chat will probably straighten it out.

My view is to reinforce the idea that we have reached a level above "the street fighting" that takes place on other venues from cyber-space to national and state politics, and so on.

Also, I think that having a specific debate forum, would create a problem that would need to be handled. The problem is: What does one do, when a debate begins spontaneously in a non-debate thread? How would that be handled? I simply don't have an answer for that.

I am not sure I answered your questions, if not, let me know.

Now then, the issue of staying on the topic: How tight do we want that?

I do firmly believe that these on going discussions about this are NoT a waste of time but are actually an important part of a long range process. So all of us will be happy at the end. And what will we have? A large group of people who have talked this whole thing out and basically agree and that ITSELF will be a huge force for making things work.

Please understand, I an NOT p*ssed, angry, or annoyed, or depressed about this at all. And I do respect the other opinions. And I believe that we are in a condition of the beginning of collective transcendence, but we must keep going. LAstly, it is not my intention to dominate this discussion.

Cheers and Good Will,
Caiyros

[Wiccan Warrior Alex]

I understand what you are getting at Caiyros. In a nutshell: It is really hard to keep a debate in focus in an online forum. With people untrained in formal debate etiquette, feelings are bound to be hurt and things that should not be said, said. Even if the statements which violate rules are deleted, it is often too late to avoid hurt feelings. The final problem is having a mod that is entirely impartial to moderate such a debate.

In a debate format, each person would be required to quantify and qualify their statements. In the past, within the forum itself,
this has been a sticky wicket with people thinking they are being abused in some way when asked these questions. End result:
eruption and hostility.

On a side note: it seems that one or two incidences have been blown out of proportion and the ones offended bring it up again, and again, and again, and again. Do I really want to hear about this again and again It's no fun debating with those who wear their feelings on their sleeve.

Namaste,
Alex

[Killa]

I understand Cairyos. And I know there's really no 'perfect' way to handle this issue. But as for the nastyness factor, as i pointed out in previous posts it's human nature and we cant really predict how one is going to react and respond to a certain post. We can only handle how WE as adults respond to them to prevent certain issues from arising.

I'll bring up an example as to what i mean when dealing with offtopicness.

I dont like pointing at anyone but this RECENT thread in particular had 'potential' to cause problems.

http://www.creepyhollows.com/phpBB3/vie ... 22&t=15822

Basically question and purpose for the OP's post as stated is "is it okay to bring your vampire spirits into church?"

One person responds saying they left there vessel in the church because "God knows whats best for his creatures."

One person expresses there dislike for that persons actions. While that doesnt make it good or bad, nothing wrong with it, it causes a chain reaction on how a thread twists and turns. Especially when peoples emotions are out in the field. Because everyone jumps on the bandwagon saying how that was such a wrong thing to do.

So instead of directly adressing the op's point and question everyone jumps on the poor fellow who would have never though EVERYONE would get on his case just for responding to the post. They are many other threads that turn out like that but this was just a recent example. Not only i felt bad for the OP how his thread turned out i felt bad about everyone jumping on the person who responded to him. Everyone there still made GOOD points adressing the issue. But it wasnt what it's about. It wasnt fair.

Who knows at what legnth when dealing on how much it takes for a thread to steer off topic whether slightly, dramaticly, or subtle. But it happens.

And that to me is the difference on the ground of holding a proper debate, from just jumping on other threads to express beliefs knowing full well how ugly it's going to end up turning out.

Whether or not a section turns up or not, it's up for people themselves to practice on it. Of course there are other reasons to have a debate section as i seen it worked on many other forum sites. But those are the specific grounds that need to be adressed.

If it continues to happen regardless though, then best we can do is dust our shoulders off to it then. But then it happens and it wont stop. No matter how much we observe it or against it.

But thank you for your response Cairyos just wanted to see if a compromise was possible on Magnolia's Part.

[MysticStar]

Reading all this, it seems you all are already having a Debate over a Debate section, and it seems peaceful to me already...just my 2cents

[p’yunik~*~chovexani]

Reading all this, it seems you all are already having a Debate over a Debate section, and it seems peaceful to me already...just my 2cents

I agree, ellen