Structured Debate on NG

[Musician]

I've been kicking this idea around in my head ever since I stumbled across this forum that hosts it's own structured debates: http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.ph p?f=101
1. The Idea

Harbor intelligent, structured debates between two people, where both sides of the argument agree to abide by certain rules. The rules are tailored to each specific debate, and each debate is presided over by a moderator.
2. Specifically, How it Might Work

It would start with a proposal thread, where a member of NG Politics would challenge someone else to a structured debate of a set topic. Such a thread might look like this:

Topic: Prop: 9/11 was an inside job.

User:shaggytheclown

Text: I shaggytheclown hereby challenge Elfer to a structured debate on the topic "9/11 was an inside job". I will be taking the affirmative side of the argument, which is to say I will be making a case for 9/11 being an inside job. I propose the following rules for our debate:

1) No personal insults in any way shape or form
2) No formal logical fallacies
3) No straying from the topic at hand
4) We must each wait at least one hour after the last response, to post our next response. This will give the opponent time to include additional information in a second post if he/she cannot fit all information in his/her first post.
5) Each response must be submitted within one day of previous response. If one day passes and a response has not been posted, the thread will be locked and a discussion thread will be opened immediately afterwards(**NOTE: I'll describe discussion threads later in this post**)
6) We will each receive 4 responses including the original post that starts the topic. After the last poster has made his fourth response, the thread will come to a formal end, be locked, and a discussion thread will be opened.
7) We will agree beforehand to restrain our use of scientific jargon for the benefit of those who may be reading our debate presently or in the future.
8) I will make the first post in our debate.
9) 911truth.com will be considered a legitimate source without question.
10) Any violation of the aforementioned rules will result in post deletion, a lock of the debate thread, and the creation of an informal discussion thread.
/Text

After the original post, Elfer would post in the thread either accepting, accepting with terms, or declining shaggy's proposal. For example, Elfer may ask for rule #9 to be edited out, and ask for several additional rules to be added before he agrees to a formal debate with shaggy. In the case that the challenged poster declines (or does not post for an extended period of time) it should be allowed for another poster on NG to volunteer to debate shaggy. For example, if Elfer decides to drop out, poxpower may decide to volunteer to take his place and debate. In that case poxpower and shaggy would haggle over which rules they should debate under until they are in agreement. If 2 weeks pass and nobody has accepted the challenge, the proposition thread will be locked.

The second step would be the debate itself (the topic for our previous example might look like [Dbte: 9/11 was an inside job]). After both posters have agreed upon the rules, one of them would start a topic and make the initial post. The rules agreed upon would be reposted at the top of the initial post for the benefit of any moderator presiding over the debate. This stage does not need much describing as it is similar to any other debate we have on the forums, only both participants must abide by the rules agreed upon in the proposition thread.
** NOTE: The only people allowed to post in the debate thread are those who agreed to debate in the proposition thread.**

After the formal debate has come to a close, the thread will be locked and someone will start a discussion thread (it might look like [Disc: 9/11 was an inside job]), where the rest of NG could further debate the topic (informally), and comment on the structured debate.

I think it also would be a good idea to start another thread similar to AS:Main, where we'd archive all of the structured debate and discussion threads so that NG posters could use them as a resource.

3. Why I'm Suggesting This

I'm suggesting this because, without naming any names, I feel that a lot of times NG is a hostile environment for a debator with an unpopular opinion, and that many of the topics on NG are railroaded by popular opinions rather than logical arguments. By allowing users to challenge other users to enforced formal debates, those with minority opinions will have a chance to present their case to the rest of NG, without the fear of being drowned in a sea of emotionally charged posts.

I also think it would help to solve a lot of the aggressive posting that happens on NG. For example, if you've been posting here for a while you'll know that there is a commonly held opinion that whoever posts last in the thread is the 'winner' of the debate. In formal debate you have the option to restrict the number of posts, which means that posters will have to actually work to make their posts more logical and persuasive and not just work at slowly wearing their opponent down with multiple posts.

Finally, the AS: Main-esque thread we would create (I'm thinking we'd call it 'Formal Debate: Main' or 'NG Debate Archive' or something similar), would provide an invaluable resource to those debating in NG politics, and raise the quality of posting throughout NG politics in general. Furthermore, it may even persuade a more scholarly crowd to sign up and debate on NG, which would expose us an even wider variety of educated points of view.
4. What We Should Discuss In This Thread

I would like to hear all of your opinions on this, especially those of the mods who would be somewhat more burdened having to regulate individual debate threads based on their individual rules. We should discuss all the possible pros and cons of the issue. We should also discuss how we may want to proceed further if we go forward with this (Perhaps we can also have structured 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 debates alongside 1v1 debates). Also, are there any changes that should be made? Please share your opinions.
**NOTE: I'm not suggesting the end to informal debating on NG, rather I'm suggesting that these threads exist alongside informal threads**

[Elfer]

Impossible. We would never allow it.

[Christopherr]

I support the idea. Maybe we could even sticky the thread when shaggy gets creamed, that we may never see any retarded 9/11 threads again.

[n64kid]

I, n64kid, challenge Musician to a structured debate about structured debates. I propose the following rules:
1) The winner becomes grandmaster of the world
2) Not allowed to be from Oregon
3) Both sides agree structured debates pose more costs of wasting time than they do benefits of not having to read ad hominems.

I would like there to be a 5 vs 5, and I'll be on the Ari Gold team.

[Brick-top]

At 3/3/09 07:08 PM, Elfer wrote: Impossible. We would never allow it.

Impossible. We're not good enough for 'decent' debates. Just merely "fuck you I'm right" circular reasoning with enough fallacies to make a meal out of.

[Buffalow]

What is this, structured debates, you speak of?

[hansari]

At 3/3/09 07:13 PM, n64kid wrote: I'll be on the Ari Gold team.

FTW

[Musician]

At 3/3/09 07:13 PM, n64kid wrote: 3) Both sides agree structured debates pose more costs of wasting time than they do benefits of not having to read ad hominems.

Of course, nobody would force you to participate in any formal debates n64kid. You could stick to informal debates riddled with over sentimentalism and obnoxious logical fallacies if you feel that's more your element. The rest of us can '[waste] time' participating in intelligent debates.

At 3/3/09 07:12 PM, Christopherr wrote: I support the idea. Maybe we could even sticky the thread when shaggy gets creamed, that we may never see any retarded 9/11 threads again.

Haha, I would support that. Unfortunately, I don't think we'd ever see the day shaggy would accept a formal debate on the subject. Although, who knows. Crazier things have happened.

At 3/3/09 07:14 PM, Brick-top wrote: Impossible. We're not good enough for 'decent' debates. Just merely "fuck you I'm right" circular reasoning with enough fallacies to make a meal out of.

Well put. The way I see it, if someone wants to be loud mouthed and shout 'Shut up, I'm right, you're wrong, and thats the end of it,' they should have no problem supporting their views in a civil debate.

[n64kid]

At 3/3/09 07:34 PM, Musician wrote:

Well put. The way I see it, if someone wants to be loud mouthed and shout 'Shut up, I'm right, you're wrong, and thats the end of it,' they should have no problem supporting their views in a civil debate.

Lol
"No, police officers protect. Soldiers kill. End of discussion."

[aninjaman]

Shaggy is a troll.
Having a formal debate is completey pointless for a troll, their point is to muddy up and ruin debates.
Shaggy won't do it.

[Musician]

At 3/3/09 07:43 PM, n64kid wrote: Lol
"No, police officers protect. Soldiers kill. End of discussion."

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about folks. This is the cancer killing civil discussion on our board.

1) This post is off topic, and contributes nothing to the discussion
2) It's a personal attack
3) It's a logical fallacy, in that it assumes that just because someone is a hypocrite, it means that their argument is invalidated (ad hominem fallacy).
4) Even if 3 wasn't true, he's quoting something from 3 years ago
5) He's not even elaborating on his argument. He's just quoting something and assuming it will be the end of the discussion.

Don't you all agree NG deserves something better than this?

[n64kid]

At 3/3/09 08:31 PM, Musician wrote:

1) This post is off topic

It really isn't.

and contributes nothing to the discussion

It contributes to my discussion.

2) It's a personal attack

You've personally attacked myself, as well as several users on this board, now you seek immunity?

3) It's a logical fallacy, in that it assumes that just because someone is a hypocrite, it means that their argument is invalidated (ad hominem fallacy).

This is what I'm getting at. Douchebags are running around crying "logical fallacy" too commonly. In almost all circumstances I've seen, they are wrong. You are correct that I'm calling you a hypocrite, but this is not a logical fallacy as I did not use it to discredit your argument. Just said it to point out who's saying what.

4) Even if 3 wasn't true

Which it isn't.

he's quoting something from 3 years ago

1 year.

5) He's not even elaborating on his argument. He's just quoting something and assuming it will be the end of the discussion.

Thats a faulty assumption on your part, with some irony. But I'll elaborate if you'd like.

Don't you all agree NG deserves something better than this?

No, here's why.

NG forums are not professional boards. Politics is no exception. Although I like some of what you've proposed, I did make a challenge to your proposal that I don't feel you adequately addressed.

-You are making threads that are specific to certain users, which could be done via PM
-Structured debates add intimidation, especially to new users (the majority of which are here for games)
-You have one user creating rules, could make a post, and then be completely ignored. What a waste, use PM
-Structured debates create ambiguity if people are restrained from articulating their full thoughts
-Structured debates are kind of like democracy, it's ideal but inefficient

Here's an example
Person A) I think England should provide certain services for Ireland
Person B) You fail. Ireland hates England and would not accept this support (link), no one wants it (link) and the English economy cannot handle a new burden (link)

Wow, efficient, and who the fuck cares that Person B is arrogant, he argued against A's opinion and provided sources.

Here's a structured debate:
Person A: List of 12 rules
Person B: I accept rules 1-9, and 11, remove 10, modify 12 and add rule 13.
Person A: Fine, here's my argument, with the tides of politics changing, don't you feel that Ireland should receive certain benefits from England?
Person B: No, here's why
Person A: Well I don't think that you completely disagree, so let me rephrase my question until you say yes.
Person B: I provided links, (and proved you wrong take a hint)
Person A: (Can't take a hint)

Wow, nothing was accomplished.

So let's get off our high horse, do things as usual, keep special rules to PMs, and if you're smart enough, ignore real logical fallacies.

[aviewaskewed]

I can agree it needs better but the problem is that you're talking about changing around the rules pretty massively for one particular forum, this is a possible issue, but could be done in the idea that some forums do have rules others don't because of the nature of what the forum discusses.

But going back to modding things. I'm not sure how many mods have formal debate training of any stripe, I don't, I did SOME debating in a Ethics 101 course, but that's it. I'm not always up on logical fallacies and things like that, so now we're talking about changing the rules in a way that will compromise the effectiveness of at least one moderator (and love me or not, I do try to do the best job possible within the parameters of our current rules to give you guys as good an experience as possible here).

In the end, I think it's a nice idea, but it doesn't work, it's not that hard to ignore trolls or own idiots in the end. There's quite a few mods on this board and in the end? You can't force people to be smart, and while this forum can get intelligent, yeah, there's some real dummies here and it is what it is. I and the other mods try to drop the cow patties and leave the good stuff. I'm not a fan of limiting speech or making the board inaccessible to people, unless that speech is unacceptable to the rules, ditto the people.

So yeah, I think it'd be too difficult to enforce, I think people would ignore it, and I think that in the end it'd cause more work for the mods and it would really fail to work out. You want better debate you have to be an example to others and we the mods also have to be examples and enforcers of it.

Unless we fundamentally changed how the politics forum works (and by that I mean liljim changing the coding to make it like the system you want, which will never happen) I just don't find it feasible. But I like and appreciate that you had the idea and the initiative to care about this forum and want to make it better.

[JeremieCompNerd]

I would love to see the idea of structured debates become popular. I would also like to see a separation of the politics thread and the science thread, the latter seems to be buried under the former. :)
I think though, that rather than including formal debates in within the politics forum, that a debate forum entirely independent of any other general topic would improve the efficiency. It is less likely that a troll, or a random emotional poster, would jump into the ring with two hard-core debaters if the ring was not in their usual hangout. I also think that for the sake of reducing the number of topics, debate rules would need to be agreed upon with PM's, and then listed at the top of the debate topic as per your original design. Post-debate chatter could also be held within the topic itself, separated by a small blank post or something to that effect. The idea of an index topic is also most definately a nice touch, since my examination of the politics forum leads to the conclusion that multiple discussions on a single topic would be much more interesting if all of the previous discussions on that topic could be readily accessed, catalogued by subject, and marked with a date of completion and the winning side. I would love to see any of this used, even if it is unlikely to become more than a great concept.

[Al6200]

At 3/3/09 07:04 PM, Musician wrote: I've been kicking this idea around in my head ever since I stumbled across this forum that hosts it's own structured debates: http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.ph p?f=101

I like the idea. Have a stickied thread where two challengers agree to go through a pre-determined number of rounds on an agreed to topic.

1. The Idea

Harbor intelligent, structured debates between two people, where both sides of the argument agree to abide by certain rules. The rules are tailored to each specific debate, and each debate is presided over by a moderator.
2. Specifically, How it Might Work

I like it.

It would start with a proposal thread, where a member of NG Politics would challenge someone else to a structured debate of a set topic. Such a thread might look like this:

What if you just had a system where any two regulars could pm a moderator, and they could make a debate thread. Or perhaps other people could do nominations.

Topic: Prop: 9/11 was an inside job.

User:shaggytheclown

Text: I shaggytheclown hereby challenge Elfer to a structured debate on the topic "9/11 was an inside job". I will be taking the affirmative side of the argument, which is to say I will be making a case for 9/11 being an inside job. I propose the following rules for our debate:

Why not just PM him and a mod, and then set it up that way?

1) No personal insults in any way shape or form
2) No formal logical fallacies
3) No straying from the topic at hand

These are all somewhat subjective, but I don't think that anyone would disagree with them.

4) We must each wait at least one hour after the last response, to post our next response. This will give the opponent time to include additional information in a second post if he/she cannot fit all information in his/her first post.

I like the idea.

5) Each response must be submitted within one day of previous response. If one day passes and a response has not been posted, the thread will be locked and a discussion thread will be opened immediately afterwards(**NOTE: I'll describe discussion threads later in this post**)

Fair enough.

6) We will each receive 4 responses including the original post that starts the topic. After the last poster has made his fourth response, the thread will come to a formal end, be locked, and a discussion thread will be opened.
7) We will agree beforehand to restrain our use of scientific jargon for the benefit of those who may be reading our debate presently or in the future.

How about:

Pro Constructive
Con Constructive
Pro rebuttal
Con rebuttal
Pro closing points
Con closing points

8) I will make the first post in our debate.
9) 911truth.com will be considered a legitimate source without question.
10) Any violation of the aforementioned rules will result in post deletion, a lock of the debate thread, and the creation of an informal discussion thread.
/Text

I don't see how you can objectively determine if someone is using, say, a strawman. It is rather easy to get caught up in technicalities,

After the original post, Elfer would post in the thread either accepting, accepting with terms, or declining shaggy's proposal. For example, Elfer may ask for rule #9 to be edited out, and ask for several additional rules to be added before he agrees to a formal debate with shaggy. In the case that the challenged poster declines (or does not post for an extended period of time) it should be allowed for another poster on NG to volunteer to debate shaggy. For example, if Elfer decides to drop out, poxpower may decide to volunteer to take his place and debate. In that case poxpower and shaggy would haggle over which rules they should debate under until they are in agreement. If 2 weeks pass and nobody has accepted the challenge, the proposition thread will be locked.

That seems rather anal to me. Why not just let people debate under rules like "No personal insults, no lying". And obviously if someone uses a fallacy than it will be pointed out. In general there are some people who abuse fallacies that don't really exist. I've even heard of a "Appeal to Numbers fallacy". WTF does that even mean?

The second step would be the debate itself (the topic for our previous example might look like [Dbte: 9/11 was an inside job]). After both posters have agreed upon the rules, one of them would start a topic and make the initial post. The rules agreed upon would be reposted at the top of the initial post for the benefit of any moderator presiding over the debate. This stage does not need much describing as it is similar to any other debate we have on the forums, only both participants must abide by the rules agreed upon in the proposition thread.
** NOTE: The only people allowed to post in the debate thread are those who agreed to debate in the proposition thread.**

After the formal debate has come to a close, the thread will be locked and someone will start a discussion thread (it might look like [Disc: 9/11 was an inside job]), where the rest of NG could further debate the topic (informally), and comment on the structured debate.

I think it also would be a good idea to start another thread similar to AS:Main, where we'd archive all of the structured debate and discussion threads so that NG posters could use them as a resource.

3. Why I'm Suggesting This

I'm suggesting this because, without naming any names, I feel that a lot of times NG is a hostile environment for a debator with an unpopular opinion, and that many of the topics on NG are railroaded by popular opinions rather than logical arguments. By allowing users to challenge other users to enforced formal debates, those with minority opinions will have a chance to present their case to the rest of NG, without the fear of being drowned in a sea of emotionally charged posts.

I also think it would help to solve a lot of the aggressive posting that happens on NG. For example, if you've been posting here for a while you'll know that there is a commonly held opinion that whoever posts last in the thread is the 'winner' of the debate. In formal debate you have the option to restrict the number of posts, which means that posters will have to actually work to make their posts more logical and persuasive and not just work at slowly wearing their opponent down with multiple posts.

Ideally the pro should get the last word, so they have the chance to defend their position completely.

Finally, the AS: Main-esque thread we would create (I'm thinking we'd call it 'Formal Debate: Main' or 'NG Debate Archive' or something similar), would provide an invaluable resource to those debating in NG politics, and raise the quality of posting throughout NG politics in general. Furthermore, it may even persuade a more scholarly crowd to sign up and debate on NG, which would expose us an even wider variety of educated points of view.
4. What We Should Discuss In This Thread

Ehhhh. Not sure about that.

I would like to hear all of your opinions on this, especially those of the mods who would be somewhat more burdened having to regulate individual debate threads based on their individual rules. We should discuss all the possible pros and cons of the issue. We should also discuss how we may want to proceed further if we go forward with this (Perhaps we can also have structured 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 debates alongside 1v1 debates). Also, are there any changes that should be made? Please share your opinions.
**NOTE: I'm not suggesting the end to informal debating on NG, rather I'm suggesting that these threads exist alongside informal threads**

I like the idea quite a bit. Right now I'm at school and quite busy, but over the summer I could probably do a few formal debates.

[Imperator]

How many have these "Help improve NG debates" topics do we have to see before the bottom line is realized?

At 3/3/09 09:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You want better debate you have to be an example to others and we the mods also have to be examples and enforcers of it.

For repetition's sake, because the point just isn't reinforced nearly enough:
You want better debate you have to be an example to others and we the mods also have to be examples and enforcers of it.
.
.
.
And that's all there really is to it.

But it doesn't happen.

There are probably a dozen users we can think of who used to be very active, got fed up with the same things you're talking about, and left.

I wrote this several months ago on someone's user page, although I think it still mostly applies today:
I think part of the problem is:
1.) The Mod Squad is disjointed. Some crack down on flame wars and repetiton, others perpetuate them. This makes "the line" blurred.

2.) New people follow the examples of old people. The old people who SUCK have done nothing but teach a new generation to suck, and suck better, harder, faster, and stronger, as is the way of things. In my own experience, asshole theists who go "lalalllalala" everytime someone questions their religion have created Shaggy and Shaggy clones, and asshole atheists who go "lalalalalal" every time a theist makes a post about why they believe have created Poxpower and Pox clones.

3.) There aren't enough smart people left to band together and make a friggin impact. Trolls rule the board, and the best any of us can do is back the troll who matches our view. "Yeah, they're trolls, but they share our views, so we're gonna ignore their crap debate skils and pretend like the opposition just don't get it".

#3 probably irritates me the most. Because what I find to the the absolute unanimous truth in all respects on these boards is this:

no one criticizes people who agree with them, no matter how fucked up and filled with insults and trolling garbage their posts may be. EVER.

In the end, this is the closest thing I've found to an informal debate devoid of name-calling, trolling, endless battles and banter, repetition, and idiocy.

[BrianEtrius]

The other problem with structured debates is they work a lot better in real life, and with the restrictions on NG it'll be near impossible.

Furthermore, with structured debates, others don't have that freedom to jump in with a point that could take out both arguments.

[Musician]

At 3/3/09 09:24 PM, n64kid wrote: It really isn't.

Yes it is.

See what I did there? I didn't elaborate. I didn't explain my argument. I didn't do anything besides perform the rhetorical equivalent of saying 'nuh uh'. Do you see something wrong with that kind of argument?

It contributes to my discussion.

Which discussion is this exactly? Is it a discussion separate from the topic at hand? Then I would say it doesn't really matter if it contributes to _your_ discussion or not because that's a moot point. What matters is _our_ discussion. _Our_ discussion being on the topic of 'structured debate'.

You've personally attacked myself, as well as several users on this board, now you seek immunity?

Are you saying that because I did something, it's suddenly alright for you to do the same thing? So if I were to make a serious argument completely based on faulty evidence and logical fallacies it would be completely alright for you to do the same?

This is what I'm getting at. Douchebags are running around crying "logical fallacy" too commonly. In almost all circumstances I've seen, they are wrong. You are correct that I'm calling you a hypocrite, but this is not a logical fallacy as I did not use it to discredit your argument. Just said it to point out who's saying what.

What exactly was the point of '[pointing] out who's saying what?' There has to be some motivation for you to want to do that. If it was to attack my credibility and thus the content of my argument then it was ad hominem. If it wasn't, then your statement was definitively off topic. You can't have both. So which was it?

1 year.

I'll concede that because it's a moot point. It could have been a day ago and it wouldn't have been any more relevant to the discussion. You see, I change my opinions in light of new evidence or new arguments. You can't hold me to what I've said in the past because it's irrelevant to the argument I'm making now.

NG forums are not professional boards. Politics is no exception.

I'm not looking to make it's professional. I'm looking to add a medium to the board that will accommodate professionals.

Although I like some of what you've proposed, I did make a challenge to your proposal that I don't feel you adequately addressed.

When? When did you raise a challenge to my proposal before this post? I am looking through this thread right now and all I see are 2 joke posts (by you), none of which provide thoughtful, supported arguments.

-You are making threads that are specific to certain users, which could be done via PM

That misses the point of formal debates in the first place. The debates are not exclusively for the benefit of the two arguing. In fact, i'd wager that most of these debates will end with neither side yielding an inch of their position. That's a moot point. The objective of structured debate is to encourage thoughtful, supported arguments that are constructive. To an extent it's about creating academic literature that other users can read, discuss, and use to form their own opinions on issues.

-Structured debates add intimidation, especially to new users (the majority of which are here for games)

Like I said in my first response to you in this thread. Nobody is forcing you to participate in these threads. If you're too intimidated by them, the best course of action would be to stick to informal discourse. This is not a system to replace what we have going here on NG. It's a system made to supplement it.

-You have one user creating rules, could make a post, and then be completely ignored. What a waste, use PM

I could agree to that. The proposition phase could be limited to PM.

-Structured debates create ambiguity if people are restrained from articulating their full thoughts

They could articulate their full thoughts so long as that articulation complied with the rules that they themselves designed and agreed to. I don't find this to be very restricting.

Here's an example
Person A) I think England should provide certain services for Ireland
Person B) You fail. Ireland hates England and would not accept this support (link), no one wants it (link) and the English economy cannot handle a new burden (link)

Wow, efficient, and who the fuck cares that Person B is arrogant, he argued against A's opinion and provided sources.

In this hypothetical situation Person B has created a hostile environment. In a civil debate, Person A might respond "I concede that it's true that the English economy can't handle it right now, but I think that the Irish would accept it because A, B, C". However, in this hostile environment Person A can't feel as secure in conceding something like this because that would mean (in the eyes of some), to be conceding to being an idiot. So instead Person A attempts to disprove all of Person B's point by going to Google and searching for things like "English economy can handle Irish aid", until he finds some abstract link that says what he wants. Eventually the entire debate degenerates into a 'I-can- shout-the-loudest-and-put-the-most-orang e-into-my-post' pissing fest.

Wow, efficient.

Oh, and before you accuse me of ad absurdum take a look around you. This is how 90% of the debates on this forum play out. It's ridiculous.

Here's a structured debate:
Person A: List of 12 rules
Person B: I accept rules 1-9, and 11, remove 10, modify 12 and add rule 13.
Person A: Fine, here's my argument, with the tides of politics changing, don't you feel that Ireland should receive certain benefits from England?
Person B: No, here's why
Person A: Well I don't think that you completely disagree, so let me rephrase my question until you say yes.
Person B: I provided links, (and proved you wrong take a hint)
Person A: (Can't take a hint)

Wow, nothing was accomplished.

And the debates may all end up like that. On the other hand, it may work wonders for intellectual debate here on NG like it has for sciforums. I don't think we can definitively say it will work one way or another until we've given it a shot.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 3/3/09 07:45 PM, aninjaman wrote: Shaggy is a troll.
Having a formal debate is completey pointless for a troll, their point is to muddy up and ruin debates.
Shaggy won't do it.

Actually I'm not a "troll", the name you've chosen is a simple and primitive way to make an idea differeing from your own seem smaller and more insignificant, dealing with your circular reasoning and total denial of scientific facts and documents are beyond my ability to control = (free will is a bitch)

I however think having an actual debate forum type thing woud be a great help in weeding out the less intelligent people, not saying I'm more intelligent but I don't usually like to add curse words or personal insults to reinforce my own claims as many have already done in this post.

Moving away from the obvious corruption and tag teams here that don't need any shaming as they punish themselves by being the way they are nicely enough.

I have grown further away from the whole 9/11 truth thing as any person here would, the simple hope that it didn't happen is enough to induce enough complacentcy to stifel any average concerned person, yet the concern remains I have come to allow my fellow posters here to determine me as an unreliable source for the soul reason of not wanting to cause widespread panic n chaos.

With what evidence I have to back up my claims is entirely of the work of other people and other's investigation, obviously since I was nowhere near the place the "conspiracy" took place and wasn't very old at the time, like everyone here I trust the sources of information and I succede to exel in the belief it is true from the oposite argument's own lack of experience and any evidence to conclude my theory to be false, ( simply put, they have no answer for what the evidence could otherwise mean).

I has alwasy been in my mind that the "buddies" of mods and popular opinion will always tend to dominate any discussion even if it was one like a wolf in sheep's cloths, (a post made to attract people with a certain take on the disussion = 9/11 truthers) Then they would bash and talk crap about the person or persons back and forth until they eventually leave knowing the grps minds are already tightly closed and no amount of reason or logic would get through.

I expect more trash talking about my intelligence and well being as if they were to try and hurt me in some way (something only people with no confidence in their own beliefs would do) and they'll high five eachother in the momentarry,fleeting,empty victory that they may have actually done something that meant anything in that point in their lives, it is very sad to see.

In closing I think structured debate would be an extremely good thing, so that people with a higher intelect and basic human understanding will be able to swap ideas and maybe help others to see things from another side, but expectedly I know no such common decency will come to this site and people will run rampid only guided by a one sided bias and no other intelligent opositions will bother to come to this site.

[Musician]

At 3/3/09 10:56 PM, Al6200 wrote: How about:

Pro Constructive
Con Constructive
Pro rebuttal
Con rebuttal
Pro closing points
Con closing points

I really like this structure. Also, I would like to point out that none of the rules I listed would be applied to every debate thread. The idea is that each debate would carry a different set of rules catered to the preferences of the posters participating in it.

[Al6200]

At 3/3/09 11:56 PM, Musician wrote:

I really like this structure. Also, I would like to point out that none of the rules I listed would be applied to every debate thread. The idea is that each debate would carry a different set of rules catered to the preferences of the posters participating in it.

Fair enough. But it seems like you don't want things to get too complicated...

[n64kid]

At 3/3/09 11:39 PM, Musician wrote:

At 3/3/09 09:24 PM, n64kid wrote: It really isn't.

Yes it is.

See what I did there? I didn't elaborate. I didn't explain my argument. I didn't do anything besides perform the rhetorical equivalent of saying 'nuh uh'. Do you see something wrong with that kind of argument?

Do YOU see what I did there? You said my post was off topic largely because I had a differing opinion, and left it at that. The burden of proof would still rest upon yourself. That makes me free to rebuttal your empty response with the amount of effort I see fit. I believe that saying "It really isn't" matches "this post if off topic". Let's say my post was off-topic, if it was, you wouldn't have replied and ignored it, but you decided to respond. But seeing how you're making a big deal out of on-topc secondary disagreements shows me how far you're willing to go ignore the drawbacks of structured debates making your argument less persuasive to me.

Which discussion is this exactly? Is it a discussion separate from the topic at hand?

No my discussion is taking the stance of the status quo, which is against your rules of structured debates on the forums.

Then I would say it doesn't really matter if it contributes to _your_ discussion or not because that's a moot point. What matters is _our_ discussion. _Our_ discussion being on the topic of 'structured debate'.

We don't have an -our- discussion. I'm been trashing you discussion and you've been going off saying "we need structured debates, look at what I'm talking about". There's no persuasion for your topic or argument against what I'm pointing out.

Are you saying that because I did something, it's suddenly alright for you to do the same thing? So if I were to make a serious argument completely based on faulty evidence and logical fallacies it would be completely alright for you to do the same?

If you're going to back a lack of effort in your posts, I'll put a lack of effort responding to that particular post. If you put in a lot of effort, I'll put in a lot of effort. Imagine that kind of a system!

What exactly was the point of '[pointing] out who's saying what?' There has to be some motivation for you to want to do that. If it was to attack my credibility and thus the content of my argument then it was ad hominem. If it wasn't, then your statement was definitively off topic. You can't have both. So which was it?

Watch how obnoxious this is:
You violated logic. First you make a logical leap in sentence three. Then you provide the false dilemma fallacy. I was only pointing out you were a hypocrite, so you'd watch yourself for future posting. Nothing more, nothing less.

The following point that has no agenda other than to point a fact out.
The point of your structured debates:

3. Why I'm Suggesting This
I'm suggesting this because, without naming any names, I feel that a lot of times NG is a hostile environment for a debator with an unpopular opinion, and that many of the topics on NG are railroaded by popular opinions rather than logical arguments

Yet this idea for new formatting is riddled with opinions and not logical arguments. See how easy it is in a structured argument to still get into disagreement and logical fallacies?

You can't hold me to what I've said in the past because it's irrelevant to the argument I'm making now.

If I feel like doing so, I can hold you to it. That's the beauty of diversity. You have someone with a different ideology from you, and I disagree and won't buy into your way of thinking. I'm not going to ignore the past just because it's inconvenient for you, it's not in -my- rules.

I'm not looking to make it's professional. I'm looking to add a medium to the board that will accommodate professionals.

The internet is vast, and professionals can find their own boards. This forum is 3 forums away from General, and it is what it is.

When? When did you raise a challenge to my proposal before this post? I am looking through this thread right now and all I see are 2 joke posts (by you), none of which provide thoughtful, supported arguments.

My first post raised question on need and validity of the rules. My second was in response to your holier-than-thou commnet.

The objective of structured debate is to encourage thoughtful, supported arguments that are constructive. To an extent it's about creating academic literature that other users can read, discuss, and use to form their own opinions on issues.

The system of flaming is more persuasive and thought provoking to viewers which is why more people view and post in them. People listen to the loudest idiot over the boring pseudo-intellectual.

-Structured debates add intimidation, especially to new users (the majority of which are here for games)

Like I said in my first response to you in this thread. Nobody is forcing you to participate in these threads. If you're too intimidated by them, the best course of action would be to stick to informal discourse. This is not a system to replace what we have going here on NG. It's a system made to supplement it.

It will die out in a week or be constantly derailed unless it's heavily moderated or theres a change in the format.

I could agree to that. The proposition phase could be limited to PM.

Great.

They could articulate their full thoughts so long as that articulation complied with the rules that they themselves designed and agreed to. I don't find this to be very restricting.

Agreement usually results from compromise. Compromise is a lose-lose scenario. Because someone is voluntarily restraining themselves from full on debate, articulation is not complete.

However, in this hostile environment Person A can't feel as secure in conceding something like this because that would mean (in the eyes of some), to be conceding to being an idiot.

Or person A tries to not feel like an idiot by coming up with more rebuttal, and uses this as motivation for better posts. In case you haven't realised it, 99% of people improve, even under our current "hostile" environment.

Wow, efficient.

Oh, and before you accuse me of ad absurdum take a look around you. This is how 90% of the debates on this forum play out. It's ridiculous.

It's still efficient, and effective, which is why it's so popularly used, even on the intelligent politics forum.

And the debates may all end up like that. On the other hand, it may work wonders for intellectual debate here on NG like it has for sciforums.

The newground community is NOT the same as the sciforums community, and being blunt, letting people know that you think they're idiots is very effective at eliminating ambiguity. What you're suggesting works in real life, but the internet is very low context. You only have words to interpret.

I don't think we can definitively say it will work one way or another until we've given it a shot.

I'll give you that.

I really like this structure. Also, I would like to point out that none of the rules I listed would be applied to every debate thread. The idea is that each debate would carry a different set of rules catered to the preferences of the posters participating in it.

This just complicates things further, I don't think the extra effort is even worth it in the first place. If this is just here to supplement the "hostile" threads, then people will still be flamed. Your plan works if all threads worked as such, but having both seems unnecessary. Other threads work for arguments and the incremental benefits between structured debates and current threads outweigh the costs. Your benefits may stop aggressive posting, and allow posts of unpopular opinion to get more credibility. The current system allows for unpopular opinions to win, if debated effectively, and the people who couldn't debate an unpopular position, probably won't buy into the structured system. Aggrressive posting is at will of the poster, and it's their prerogative to do so.

[Sajberhippien]

At 3/3/09 10:56 PM, Al6200 wrote: . I've even heard of a "Appeal to Numbers fallacy". WTF does that even mean?

It's just another word for Argumentum ad Populum. Stupid, yes. Sounds like the problem was appealing to statistics or something, but it's just appealing to the number of people sharing your viewpoint.

[Musician]

Let me start by saying this will be my last post on the matter. Your arguments are not constructive, and they do not contribute to this topic. Thus far, almost half of your 'criticisms' or 'trashings(sic?)' have only served derail this thread from it's topic. The rest, in my opinion, are not arguments well founded enough or supported enough for me to justify responding to them any longer. I will not act as a catalyst for this argument that is gradually becoming a pissing fest; the very thing I hope to avoid by introducing the concept of structured debates. After this response I will consider the argument concluded.

At 3/4/09 12:51 AM, n64kid wrote: I believe that saying "It really isn't" matches "this post if off topic".

Alright, I'll concede that. However, I maintain that your post was off topic because pointing out my hypocrisy (by your own admission) had no bearing on my argument (the topic).

No my discussion is taking the stance of the status quo, which is against your rules of structured debates on the forums.

Now wait a second. You just said in your last post that your statement had no bearing on my argument for structured debate. Now you're saying that it was a response, and that it had relevance to the discussion. If this is true, then I can only assume that the argument you were making _was_ that my alleged hypocrisy had a bearing on the argument. Now you're going back and forth.

If you're going to back a lack of effort in your posts, I'll put a lack of effort responding to that particular post. If you put in a lot of effort, I'll put in a lot of effort. Imagine that kind of a system!

So you'll bring yourself down to your opponents level? Feel free to do that, just realize that your opponent's ineptitude doesn't excuse your own. Also realize that it's a particularly weak tactic if you're basing your opponent's 'lack of effort' on posts he made a year ago.

Watch how obnoxious this is:
You violated logic. First you make a logical leap in sentence three. Then you provide the false dilemma fallacy.

Close but no cigar. Your argument hinges on the false dichotomy actually being false. There is such a thing as a true dichotomy. This is one of them.

The entire argument can be grouped into possible categories:
1) that your statement is an address to my argument.
2) that your statement is not an adress to my argument.

There is no third possibility.

if 1) is true, then you were committing an ad hominem fallacy, because my hypocrisy has no bearing on the argument.

if 2) is true then you were straying from the topic, because my hypocrisy has no bearing on the topic.

There are no non-sequiturs here. Everything follows.

I was only pointing out you were a hypocrite, so you'd watch yourself for future posting. Nothing more, nothing less.

In which case your statement earlier in this thread, stating that your post was relevant to the discussion because it supported the status quo is false. You say right here that it was only to point out that I was a hypocrite. 'Nothing more, nothing less'. those are your own words.

The following point that has no agenda other than to point a fact out.
The point of your structured debates:

Following which you will proceed to...

Yet this idea for new formatting is riddled with opinions and not logical arguments. See how easy it is in a structured argument to still get into disagreement and logical fallacies?

Make another point. So it did have another agenda. Also, your point is moot. Arguments are allowed to be based on opinions and instead of logic they can be based on evidence. What you've quoted is closer to a hypothesis, which can and should be called into question. The reason the hypothesis is without much support is because it's something I assume newgrounds will agree with. I'm not going to waste my time explaining everything in extreme detail in my original post, that would seriously reduce the fluency of my writing. If you're looking for evidence that threads get railroaded by popular opinions just take a look at any 'nuclear power' argument on NG, or for that matter any '9/11 conspiracy' argument.

If I feel like doing so, I can hold you to it. That's the beauty of diversity. You have someone with a different ideology from you, and I disagree and won't buy into your way of thinking. I'm not going to ignore the past just because it's inconvenient for you, it's not in -my- rules.

Sure you can hold me to it. However, if you hold me to it under certain circumstances it can be considered a logical fallacy, or off topic, or something else undesirable. You're really only hurting your own argument by doing it.

[Musician]

The internet is vast, and professionals can find their own boards. This forum is 3 forums away from General, and it is what it is.

Do you have any support for this besides fact that this forum is '3 forums away from General'? I don't see why this forum couldn't have areas catered to professionals.

My first post raised question on need and validity of the rules. My second was in response to your holier-than-thou commnet.

How exactly did your first post '[raise] question and need and validity of the rules'? The only thing I can see even resembling an argument is clause 3 where you state: 'Both sides agree structured debates pose more costs of wasting time than they do benefits of not having to read ad hominems.' That is not a supported argument. It's a completely unsupported thesis.

The system of flaming is more persuasive and thought provoking to viewers which is why more people view and post in them. People listen to the loudest idiot over the boring pseudo-intellectual.

Maybe that should signify to you that the structure of the debate should be modified. That way, arguments can be judged by their content and not their empty rhetoric.

It will die out in a week or be constantly derailed unless it's heavily moderated or theres a change in the format.

Once again, nothing to support this claim. No points to counter.

Agreement usually results from compromise. Compromise is a lose-lose scenario. Because someone is voluntarily restraining themselves from full on debate, articulation is not complete.

Nobody says that they have to agree on anything except the rules. They do not have to compromise in the actual debate.

Or person A tries to not feel like an idiot by coming up with more rebuttal, and uses this as motivation for better posts. In case you haven't realised it, 99% of people improve, even under our current "hostile" environment.

If improving entails learning to shout and to search google for links to support your own predetermined argument, then yes, I totally agree with you: everyone improves. However,I disagree with that definition of 'improve'. As it stands, all the current environment serves to do is breed more hostility, which in turn leads to more zealous arguments. This is not an environment that encourages intellectual debate, it's an environment that encourages (and rewards) shouting matches.

It's still efficient, and effective, which is why it's so popularly used, even on the intelligent politics forum.

Efficient and effective, but at what? Becoming an NG phariah through a link bomb contest or making an informed and logical argument? Honestly, I could care less how efficient the current system is at encouraging posters to learn to shout and scream their arguments.

The newground community is NOT the same as the sciforums community, and being blunt,

What exactly do you think is different? You think they're smarter? Hardly. They're actually very similar to our community. A bunch of average joes with a few above average joes and a few below average joes. Hell, they even have their very own 911 conspiracy troll.

letting people know that you think they're idiots is very effective at eliminating ambiguity.

It's also very effective at needlessly alienating people.

What you're suggesting works in real life, but the internet is very low context. You only have words to interpret.

I've already proven it can work on the internet by linking to sciforums.

This just complicates things further, I don't think the extra effort is even worth it in the first place. If this is just here to supplement the "hostile" threads, then people will still be flamed. Your plan works if all threads worked as such, but having both seems unnecessary.

See, I disagree, I think both informal and formal posting is required for rounded political discussion. Informal discussion is great for generating ideas and trading points of view, but isn't so great for actual discourse. formal is the exact opposite: not so much for trading points of view as it is for pitting them up against other well developed arguments. They both have their purposes. If they didn't there wouldn't be a point of having 2 of them.

The current system allows for unpopular opinions to win, if debated effectively, and the people who couldn't debate an unpopular position, probably won't buy into the structured system. Aggrressive posting is at will of the poster, and it's their prerogative to do so.

The current system allows for the most beligerent and outspoken opinions to win, which means it generally leans towards popular opinion. Structured debate counters this by restricting the rhetoric of both sides, allowing arguments to be judged in clarity, without the influence of mobs of posters who all agree with each other and drown out the opposition.

And that's it. As far as I'm concerned this argument is over. I also may add as an afterthought that the very fact we spent so much time debating your obvious logical fallacy is in itself a testament to the 'efficiency' of informal debate. In a formal debate where one of the rules clearly restricted users from making personal attacks, you wouldn't have your attack (and thus you wouldn't have commited ad hominem), and we would have never went on a 3-5 post tangent arguing over whether it was a logical fallacy. So there you go, this very argument is in itself evidence that the structure of our debate here on Newgrounds deserves some reform.

[aviewaskewed]

Well, since the topic author feels this is done, I'll close with an idea I just had for folks that are looking for structured debate:

Make a debate club. I don't think it will work in this forum as a bunch of seperate threads, but a single thread of like minded people who could mostly run it themselves and might occasionally need a mod to drop by to put out an obvious fire. The big problem here is you are asking for the mod team to need to agree that they would even WANT to do this, and considering I'm the only mod that posted in this thread (and damn sure I'm not here all the time, or probably enough to be the only guy dealing with this) that probably says all that needs to be said about willingness to deal with this.

So yeah, maybe form a debate club, otherwise, just try to make your own debating in threads on here better, and report the obvious tards to people like me who can take care of them.