Ryusuta
Smash Master
Specifically, debating on this site. I notice that every single forum with social topics here has this unbelievable phobia against religious/political/sexuality etc. debates. Although the explanation for this remains fairly constant, it still puzzles me the degree to which people run screaming for the hills whenever the POSSIBILITY of such a discussion comes up.
So, let's take a look at this. There are a few constant reasons that debates are considered unwelcome on this site:
To me, none of these reasons hold much water at all, and I'll explain why.
The emotional investment part is a cinch: if people flame, they get moderated. If they can't be civil, then that's that. This isn't a matter of giving moderators extra work, it's just common sense. If they're the type of person that will start flaming over ONE discussion, chances are, they'll be apt to cause trouble even without the subject being allowed.
Irrelevance is a little bit less cut-and-dry. You see, to me, I'm always willing to account for a conversation going in a certain direction rather than remaining static. More to the point, some subjects very handily lend themselves to subject matter that is arbitrarily declared taboo. For example: the LGBT thread at the Pool Room. They say no religious discussion at all. Yet, the double-standard seems to be that people are allowed to say that their religious beliefs make them feel homosexuality is wrong, but they aren't allowed to be asked to elaborate on their reasons (such as they are), because THAT is considered debate. To me, if the subject is off-limits, it's off-limits to EVERYBODY.
But that's the thing. I don't think this sort of thing SHOULD be off-limits to anyone. I feel that these important subjects should always be discussed openly and unflinchingly. I think saying that a certain subject can't be talked about at some places is the same as sticking your hands on your ears and going "Lalalalala! I can't hear you! Lalalalala!" It seems... well... infantile.
The next argument against open debate is the assumption that people's minds won't ever be changed; particularly on the subject of religion. This is only true if you look at things in terms of stark, black-and-white contrast. Am I likely to convert someone from their beliefs entirely, making them renounce their faith? Probably not. But that's not what debates are always about. Debates are about gaining perspective and interpreting viewpoints that are different from your own. I've said before on numerous in-depth debates that I'm almost universally MORE interested in listening to the people that have a different point of view than that of those that agree with me.
To me, debating isn't about winning an argument. I mean, if I definitively proved myself right, I've gained nothing. I've simply broken even. If I can come to an understanding of someone else's possibly more accurate understanding of a subject, however, then I've improved my own perspective and have thus benefited for losing.
When it comes to postwhoring, I have to honestly laugh about this one. The hypocrisy involved with it has been absolutely staggering. Essentially, from my experience, the same people that use this argument are the same exact people that post repeatedly on a topic in which a debate has broken out, contribute nothing to the subject at hand, and simply post something like "Guys, stop fighting and take it to PMs." Yes, it's just as productive the fifth time someone says that as the other four times.
Yeah, that's another thing. It ticks me off when someone brings up a topic for debate, and then when they're contradicted they say "This isn't the place for it. Let's take it to PMs." Like it was okay for them to bring it up in the first place.
Finally, the suggestion that no one that isn't involved is interested in debates. To me, this makes a lot of assumptions and ignores some very common-sense realities. First, it's really not that hard in this day and age on BBS systems to ignore people who have things to say that you don't like. That in and of itself invalidates this argument. However, it also makes the rather foolish assumption that the people discussing the matter are argumentative flamers that just like to bicker, and the people that aren't taking part are rational, peace-loving people that only want what's good for the forum. Puh-leease.
So, naturally, I'm not advocating for any drastic rule changes or anything (for all the good that would do), but I thought that these observations should be made. If a debate is relevant to the subject at hand, I see no reason it shouldn't take place, even if it's not specifically here in the Debate Hall.
So, let's take a look at this. There are a few constant reasons that debates are considered unwelcome on this site:
- First, the emotional investment involved with these specific subjects. People get offended when their beliefs are called to task, and tend to get overly defensive in backing them up. This leads into flaming and general abuse on both sides.
- Irrelevance to the subject at hand. This is fairly self-explanatory; people don't want their threads derailed.
- The suggestion that no one's minds will change anyway. People believe the debates not to be worthwhile because people will always be set in their opinion.
- The threat of postwhoring. In other words, people taking part in the battle only to get +1 on their post counts.
- People don't like to read debates.
To me, none of these reasons hold much water at all, and I'll explain why.
The emotional investment part is a cinch: if people flame, they get moderated. If they can't be civil, then that's that. This isn't a matter of giving moderators extra work, it's just common sense. If they're the type of person that will start flaming over ONE discussion, chances are, they'll be apt to cause trouble even without the subject being allowed.
Irrelevance is a little bit less cut-and-dry. You see, to me, I'm always willing to account for a conversation going in a certain direction rather than remaining static. More to the point, some subjects very handily lend themselves to subject matter that is arbitrarily declared taboo. For example: the LGBT thread at the Pool Room. They say no religious discussion at all. Yet, the double-standard seems to be that people are allowed to say that their religious beliefs make them feel homosexuality is wrong, but they aren't allowed to be asked to elaborate on their reasons (such as they are), because THAT is considered debate. To me, if the subject is off-limits, it's off-limits to EVERYBODY.
But that's the thing. I don't think this sort of thing SHOULD be off-limits to anyone. I feel that these important subjects should always be discussed openly and unflinchingly. I think saying that a certain subject can't be talked about at some places is the same as sticking your hands on your ears and going "Lalalalala! I can't hear you! Lalalalala!" It seems... well... infantile.
The next argument against open debate is the assumption that people's minds won't ever be changed; particularly on the subject of religion. This is only true if you look at things in terms of stark, black-and-white contrast. Am I likely to convert someone from their beliefs entirely, making them renounce their faith? Probably not. But that's not what debates are always about. Debates are about gaining perspective and interpreting viewpoints that are different from your own. I've said before on numerous in-depth debates that I'm almost universally MORE interested in listening to the people that have a different point of view than that of those that agree with me.
To me, debating isn't about winning an argument. I mean, if I definitively proved myself right, I've gained nothing. I've simply broken even. If I can come to an understanding of someone else's possibly more accurate understanding of a subject, however, then I've improved my own perspective and have thus benefited for losing.
When it comes to postwhoring, I have to honestly laugh about this one. The hypocrisy involved with it has been absolutely staggering. Essentially, from my experience, the same people that use this argument are the same exact people that post repeatedly on a topic in which a debate has broken out, contribute nothing to the subject at hand, and simply post something like "Guys, stop fighting and take it to PMs." Yes, it's just as productive the fifth time someone says that as the other four times.
Yeah, that's another thing. It ticks me off when someone brings up a topic for debate, and then when they're contradicted they say "This isn't the place for it. Let's take it to PMs." Like it was okay for them to bring it up in the first place.
Finally, the suggestion that no one that isn't involved is interested in debates. To me, this makes a lot of assumptions and ignores some very common-sense realities. First, it's really not that hard in this day and age on BBS systems to ignore people who have things to say that you don't like. That in and of itself invalidates this argument. However, it also makes the rather foolish assumption that the people discussing the matter are argumentative flamers that just like to bicker, and the people that aren't taking part are rational, peace-loving people that only want what's good for the forum. Puh-leease.
So, naturally, I'm not advocating for any drastic rule changes or anything (for all the good that would do), but I thought that these observations should be made. If a debate is relevant to the subject at hand, I see no reason it shouldn't take place, even if it's not specifically here in the Debate Hall.
