The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Claire Diviner]

Man, I miss the old debate hall. Not for the exclusivity so much as for the "if you don't know how to hold a debate you aren't welcome".

Personally, it's not exclusivity that I care about more so than the quality of threads created by random users. Pointless debate threads needlessly causes clutter.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Personally, it's not exclusivity that I care about more so than the quality of threads created by random users. Pointless debate threads needlessly causes clutter.

And pointless answers.

Hey buddy, newsflash - if you can't back up your points with evidence, maybe this isn't the right place for you.

 

[Claire Diviner]

And pointless answers.
Hey buddy, newsflash - if you can't back up your points with evidence, maybe this isn't the right place for you.

So what would that mean for the "Evidence of God" thread (among few others)? I doubt anyone can provide evidence that supports or debunks such a deity's existence.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So what would that mean for the "Evidence of God" thread (among few others)? I doubt anyone can provide evidence that supports or debunks such a deity's existence.

They could at least try. Like, you know, present an argument, and evidence for that argument. It's a hard question, but that doesn't excuse assertions with no evidence. And that's kinda what we see in that thread - assertions, and evidence to back it up. Not always great evidence, but at least they try.

 

[Sehnsucht]

They could at least try. Like, you know, present an argument, and evidence for that argument. It's a hard question, but that doesn't excuse assertions with no evidence. And that's kinda what we see in that thread - assertions, and evidence to back it up. Not always great evidence, but at least they try.

Evidence is an empirical quantity. You can only make good use of evidence -- facts, statistics, articles, papers, etc. -- when it comes to things like politics, science, social issues, history, and so on, where hard numbers can be applied and invoked. In such domains, you can verify the validity of a claim by comparing it to reality (i.e. through use of the scientific method).

Topics involving philosophy can't be as supported by evidence, since philosophy is less an empirical field (same with mathematics). You have to rely far more on pure argumentation. You can use data to inform your position (like sourcing polls about what people think or believe or behave concerning the topic), but it's the rigour of argument that will make or break your case.

Hence why in threads like the Evidence for God thread, you can't make much use of raw data, since God is either something we can't yet infer empirically, or we can't outright infer empirically by definition. If we can't go out in the world and prove it one way or the other, we can only make assertions -- though we can differentiate good assertions from the bad based on logical criteria (consistency, lack of contradictions and fallacies, etc).

So yeah. I figured that I'd highlight the empirical/non-empirical distinction, since it accounts for the kind of discourse one sees depending on the thread topic. Having things be empirically verified is better than not, I agree, but there are some topics that require a different approach, so we make do with what we can.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Evidence is an empirical quantity. You can only make good use of evidence -- facts, statistics, articles, papers, etc. -- when it comes to things like politics, science,

I'm ******** about the guy in the Monsanto thread.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'm *****ing about the guy in the Monsanto thread.

Just went to skim the thread. I appreciate that you're trying to uphold a standard of debate with sources and citations. And as I'm sure you'll agree, being blunt and straightforward is not a mark of condescension, especially if the opposing party is not willing to meet the established (or at least, proposed) standard.

I know little on the subject of GMOs/agriculture industry/etc., so perhaps I'll have to give the thread a more focused read in the coming days.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just went to skim the thread. I appreciate that you're trying to uphold a standard of debate with sources and citations. And as I'm sure you'll agree, being blunt and straightforward is not a mark of condescension, especially if the opposing party is not willing to meet the established (or at least, proposed) standard.

Yeah, I mean back in the day I remember there being plenty of people I disagreed with - Nicholas2014 or whatever his name was and Dre. (right?) spring to mind. But at least they tried. I disagreed with them, but I could always see where they were coming from, and they always tried to provide good supporting evidence.

**** like "I'm not going to get into a cite war" when asked for the first time for a citation to back up your outlandish, insane claims has no place in the debate hall, or any rational debate.

 

[JayTheUnseen]

I enjoy skimming through here sometimes, but I am TERRIBLE at debate of any kind, which is why I'll continue to just lurk. lol

 

[Claire Diviner]

Yeah, I mean back in the day I remember there being plenty of people I disagreed with - Nicholas2014 or whatever his name was and Dre. (right?) spring to mind. But at least they tried. I disagreed with them, but I could always see where they were coming from, and they always tried to provide good supporting evidence.

**** like "I'm not going to get into a cite war" when asked for the first time for a citation to back up your outlandish, insane claims has no place in the debate hall, or any rational debate.

I went back to the thread to skim through what you meant, and yeah, I can see where you're coming from. The least he could have done was actually try. Heck, even I tried with citations, but then I stopped after I realized there was nothing I could do to really make my case any stronger (it's how I concede defeat, in case anyone was wondering). The guy you're talking about, however, didn't attempt to back up his argument, all the while, you're making your argument stronger. It sucks, but this is what we have to deal with.

Personally, I like the more philosophical debates myself.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I went back to the thread to skim through what you meant, and yeah, I can see where you're coming from. The least he could have done was actually try. Heck, even I tried with citations, but then I stopped after I realized there was nothing I could do to really make my case any stronger (it's how I concede defeat, in case anyone was wondering). The guy you're talking about, however, didn't attempt to back up his argument, all the while, you're making your argument stronger. It sucks, but this is what we have to deal with.

Personally, I like the more philosophical debates myself.

Same guy in the Marijuana thread.

I realize this forum is no longer cordoned off, but does that still mean we can't exclude certain people from it?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Same guy in the Marijuana thread.

I realize this forum is no longer cordoned off, but does that still mean we can't exclude certain people from it?

Ripped the thought right out of my mind.

 

[Braydon]

ehh the people who quote wikipedia and the monsanto webpage to defend monsanto are mad at me for my sources, lol.

Yes let's site sources that aren't worth ****, that backs up your argument.

 

[Claire Diviner]

ehh the people who quote wikipedia and the monsanto webpage to defend monsanto are mad at me for my sources, lol.

Yes let's site sources that aren't worth ****, that backs up your argument.

First of all, I used citations other than Wikipedia for the Monsanto thread, because I know people, like you, would be the first to immediately cry foul at a Wikipedia page with the BS argument that "it's all made up". Secondly, in the marijuana debate, I used far more sources not named "Wikipedia", all of which backed up everything I said, and your rebuttals had nothing! What have you shown? A government website that didn't do anything to further your point. You're a terrible debater, with clear lack of thought for your arguments. You brought nothing to any debate, a horrible troll, and your desire to leave this debate will be no skin off our noses.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

ehh the people who quote wikipedia and the monsanto webpage to defend monsanto are mad at me for my sources, lol.

Yes let's site sources that aren't worth ****, that backs up your argument.

Your solution to this problem seems to be not citing sources at all, and I applaud your insistence on being an absolute tool about it. May I recommend you try your debate tactics somewhere else? Like, I dunno, 4chan? Seems more your speed.

Seriously, @ Sucumbio can anything be done here?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Seriously, @ Sucumbio can anything be done here?

Like an infraction? Or an outright ban from this board at the very least?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm going to need you to site sources for "uncalled for."

With all due respect, you made several very specific claims that should be trivial to back up:
- That various independent studies of GMOs were backed in secret by monsanto
- That legitimate researchers showed that GMOs were dangerous
- The FDA does whatever it is lobbied to and cannot be relied on

I handed you a way to cite the first on a silver platter. The second should be trivial - just tell me the names of the studies. The third claim is bizarre, but if you believe it, you should be able to back up your assertions. This was the first time in the thread I asked you for a citation, and your immediate response was "I'm not going to". And then two posts later you continued making similar assertions.

And then you call me out out of nowhere, and when someone points out that that's a **** move, you say this?

...

Let's keep this stupid pointless pissing contest to the social thread, eh? That thread is about global industrial capitalism.

 

[Sucumbio]

Okay, let's all breath a second, lol.

You are both correct, there is no real way to "protect" the DH from specific posters. Infractions and warnings can be used to handle specific posts/posters. However, I would like to submit that this is a GOOD thing. Hear me out, now :D

Before, when the DH was a closed forum, the tendency was towards elitism. True, we now have sort of a barn-door-wide-open thing going, but as I see it, it's really just more work for me, lol. Y'all can continue as you have been, debating, and hopefully we'll have more participation from people who are intellectually honest. Meanwhile, I don't actually mind the various debate styles, but there are several things that cannot pass that I've seen here recently and I don't want to just say it's all one person, either. Everyone in the Debate Hall should know better than to call other users names, use the report button because their argument sucks, or tit for tat play like this is facebook and one-line the threads up like a ****in' social thread. No, no and no. NO!

 

[Sehnsucht]

Our lively Sucumbio laying down the law and loving life.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Okay, let's all breath a second, lol.

You are both correct, there is no real way to "protect" the DH from specific posters. Infractions and warnings can be used to handle specific posts/posters. However, I would like to submit that this is a GOOD thing. Hear me out, now :D

Before, when the DH was a closed forum, the tendency was towards elitism. True, we now have sort of a barn-door-wide-open thing going, but as I see it, it's really just more work for me, lol. Y'all can continue as you have been, debating, and hopefully we'll have more participation from people who are intellectually honest. Meanwhile, I don't actually mind the various debate styles, but there are several things that cannot pass that I've seen here recently and I don't want to just say it's all one person, either. Everyone in the Debate Hall should know better than to call other users names, use the report button because their argument sucks, or tit for tat play like this is facebook and one-line the threads up like a ****in' social thread. No, no and no. NO!

I'm not a fan of this. Still, if it's something you're adamant in doing, I'll grit my teeth and bear it. I'll keep a cool head, but I don't want anyone throwing insults my way, like directly calling me stupid (people can call my arguments stupid all they want). It's akin to a tinderbox in a small room with 1000 lit candles, if you ask me.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'm not a fan of this. Still, if it's something you're adamant in doing, I'll grit my teeth and bear it. I'll keep a cool head, but I don't want anyone throwing insults my way, like directly calling me stupid (people can call my arguments stupid all they want). It's akin to a tinderbox in a small room with 1000 lit candles, if you ask me.

Perhaps thankfully, I don't have the temperament that incites me to ad hominems and insulting the person. I try to be charitable in my discussion with others.

It is my working hypothesis that the key to resolving any conflict (or most, anyway, certainly online ones) is with understanding. Hence why I always seek to understand first before I dissect and refute and whatnot.

And it is thanks to this approach that I transcended my material body and now supervene as a construct of thought upon the infrastructure of the world wide web.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Perhaps thankfully, I don't have the temperament that incites me to ad hominems and insulting the person. I try to be charitable in my discussion with others.

It is my working hypothesis that the key to resolving any conflict (or most, anyway, certainly online ones) is with understanding. Hence why I always seek to understand first before I dissect and refute and whatnot.

And it is thanks to this approach that I transcended my material body and now supervene as a construct of thought upon the infrastructure of the world wide web.

I'll log that one down. Maybe I ought to do the same. In hindsight, I can't let some random person behind a computer screen from goodness knows where in the world get to me.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The "ignore" list is hopefully still a thing (Woltlab Burning Boards is a colossal piece of ****).

 

[adumbrodeus]

I do have that temperament, thankfully I generally have very good self-control (one former creationalist exempted, though I think even then I had a great deal of self-control).

 

[Sehnsucht]

The Ignore function is around, though I've only used it once (against a spambot).

I don't Ignore people because I remain wholly unfazed by existence.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The Ignore function is around, though I've only used it once (against a spambot).

I don't Ignore people because I remain wholly unfazed by existence.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were this guy...

 

[Sehnsucht]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were this guy...

I don't know who that is.

We'd probably be total bros, though. Blue and gold never gets old, as the new generation says.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I don't know who that is.

We'd probably be total bros, though. Blue and gold never gets old, as the new generation says.

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Exdeath

 

[Sehnsucht]

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Exdeath

"Exdeath is a selfish, maniacal, loud-mouthed, blasphemous being of evil."

Who'd have thought Final Fantasy was way more accurate than Myers-Briggs?

 

[adumbrodeus]

The Ignore function is around, though I've only used it once (against a spambot).

I don't Ignore people because I remain wholly unfazed by existence.

My ignore list is currently at 2 people. Problem is I'm too competitive when I think I'm right haha. Generally I just see it as discipline training to not cross the line.

 

[Sehnsucht]

My ignore list is currently at 2 people. Problem is I'm too competitive when I think I'm right haha. Generally I just see it as discipline training to not cross the line.

You know what kind of training I use so that I don't cross the line?

Kegel exercises.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Different line, but I do them too

 

[Sehnsucht]

Oh, no. I do them solely to improve my DH game.

We're DH goons. We'll never come close to that other line.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Oh, no. I do them solely to improve my DH game.

We're DH goons. We'll never come close to that other line.

I didn't think exercise can improve one's ability to debate.

 

[Lichi]

Have been reading quite a lot of stuff in this subforum. Gotta say, though some topics really interest me and make my fingers itch to type lengthy responses, I am held back, as I do not see certain topics going anywhere (especially true for the theism debate).

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Applies not only to creationists and evolution.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Oh, no. I do them solely to improve my DH game.

We're DH goons. We'll never come close to that other line.

Speak for yourself

 

[Sehnsucht]

I didn't think exercise can improve one's ability to debate.

The brain -- and therefore, the mind -- is part of the body.

Gotta treat it like a queen.

Have been reading quite a lot of stuff in this subforum. Gotta say, though some topics really interest me and make my fingers itch to type lengthy responses, I am held back, as I do not see certain topics going anywhere (especially true for the theism debate).

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Applies not only to creationists and evolution.

Life doesn't ever go anywhere, so why would you expect the DH to be any different?

Speak for yourself

I'm going to make a thread later today so we can debate the issue.

Best bring your A-game, son.

 

[Braydon]

Perhaps thankfully, I don't have the temperament that incites me to ad hominems and insulting the person. I try to be charitable in my discussion with others.

It is my working hypothesis that the key to resolving any conflict (or most, anyway, certainly online ones) is with understanding. Hence why I always seek to understand first before I dissect and refute and whatnot.

Did it ever occur to you, that maybe I do understand what's being said, and I still don't like it?

If I didn't understand it I'd get confused not irritated now wouldn't I?

Don't quite like your idea that it must just be me having limited brain power, and a knee-jerk reaction to anger when I'm confused...

 

[Sehnsucht]

Did it ever occur to you, that maybe I do understand what's being said, and I still don't like it?

If I didn't understand it I'd get confused not irritated now wouldn't I?

Don't quite like your idea that it must just be me having limited brain power, and a knee-jerk reaction to anger when I'm confused...

My response wasn't directed at you, nor anyone particularly. Might I ask how you thought it was?

I was simply noting my experience in dealing with those with whom I disagreed, and/or those who I found were contentious or uncharitable toward me (in the context of online discussion). In time, I've come to adopt an approach wherein I seek to not get heated, to maintain a consistent voice, to ensure I understand the positions of others, to address content before user, etc.

I then proposed that Claire consider trying this approach, since she expressed how she didn't like succumbing to frustration when debating. I know well that she was referring to you, but my response wasn't addressing that; it was centered on approaches to debate generally. Then, after a brief quip, my post ended. That's all there was to it.

You and I have yet to engage in adversarial discourse, but if we ever were to, I would seek to apply my described approach, because I seek to apply it universally, regardless if I agree or disagree with the other party. Unless this count as a pseudo-debate, in which case I'm applying my approach right now.

So yeah. In essence, I'm just wondering how you interpreted my post to Claire as a condemnation of the way you approach debate.

 

[Lichi]

Life doesn't ever go anywhere, so why would you expect the DH to be any different?

I'd say life does go somewhere, but that topic would be enough to fill a topic on its own (and that topic already exists in some ways in other threads), but as the DH is not a replica of full life, but just a small aspect of it, it might behave differently.
Also, I have heard of certain occasions where discussions actually lead to something. Sometimes they grow understanding, spark new interest and expand knowledge. To give you some credit, you are one of if not the main force in the DH to make it move in that direction.