NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard rhetoric being flung from both sides, strike that, all sides of every conceivable issue being discussed. (except for the Rome vs Carthage one...Im just waiting for that one)

What Im wondering about, is if there is any real debate going on any more, or is it only pundits shouting their views to their respective audiences ignoring anything that doesnt fit into their own pre concieved notions.

I've heard rhetoric being flung from both sides, strike that, all sides of every conceivable issue being discussed. (except for the Rome vs Carthage one...Im just waiting for that one)

What Im wondering about, is if there is any real debate going on any more, or is it only pundits shouting their views to their respective audiences ignoring anything that doesnt fit into their own pre concieved notions.

The debates are OK but to be honest everyone who debates here has made their minds up already. So as far as trying to change people's minds, the debates are a waste of time. For entertainment that kills some spare time they serve their purpose.

I do think that people who think debating involves insulting the poster are the only downside to debates on the NationStates forum.

The discussions are fine after about 10 pages, when the people with the attention span of cheese have left.

The two main problems, from my perspective are the insult matches (and yes, I'm willing to admit I've been dragged into and instigated these - comes from periods, believe it or not), and the people who read the first post, and then ignore everything else and just jump in on the 15th page. And *always*, without fail, it's with something that's already been answered. Then you can look forward to the thread degerating for a few pages into people re-hashing the same point they discussed not two pages ago. That really really makes me want to stab something in the eye. If people aren't interested enough in the topic to read 15 pages (yes, I always read the whole thread before replying), they really shouldn't post at all. It's the equivilent of walking up to a crowd of people and saying "I like pickles. Do any of you like pickles?" and then wandering off again - pointless distraction.

I Like Pickles

How about somewhere in between...you kids and your extremes..

Debates are fine until that one person runs into a thread spewing crap and flames, and....well....there goes the thread.

I'd like to delve briefly into the meaning of the word "pundit." A pundit is literally a learned person. It is used today, in the context of political pundits who generally just say the same thing and focus mostly on misleading without lying. The original pundits were scholars and gurus in India and were admirable, not to be despised as the bain of the intelligent and independent.

Now onto the real topic...

Debate is alive and well, just not here, and not on TV. Television is a means for mass dissemination of information and is, as such nearly meaningless in terms of the spread of thought. Basically TV does not allow for thought, though it does allow for those with control of the cameras to bring a wide audience for their message. Unfortunately people seem to have come to this general conclusion that if a person is on TV and sounds[/]i authoritative that he must [i]be an authority. Note the comments made by, primarily Conservative talk radio and talk show commentators after Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC and after Dean's "yelling." They called Sharpton a number of negative things despite the fact that he was one of the conventions most powerful speakers in "learned" tones. They said that Dean seemed angry during his speech, when he was just horse and enthusiastic. People in general took what these "pundits" said for granted and began to think of Dean as generally angry despite the fact that there was actually no reason to believe that he was unusually angry or even that he was angry during his speech. The power of these political commentators comes from the fact that they never allow anyone to question them without a witty response. They maintain the image that they are the foremost authority on whatever subject they are discussing without ever providing people with any reason to believe that they are except their appearance. TV is all about appearances and the "pundits" of modern politics are masters of presenting false appearances.

It's always pretty much run this way...those with extremist positions stand out, get shouted down by another, shout back, etc. The dogmatic and immovable always shout louder (or, around here, post more prolifically). There are plenty of individuals left who still think around here. If it were all unthinking zealots, I wouldn't have come back after I moved. There'd be no point, because with zealots, there's no intelligent debate.

As of yet, there has been no death of debate, it just gets a little anemic now and then. ;)

F-ck, I hate these new emoticons.

Does anyone ever change their beliefs when they take part in a debate? About all you can ever hope for is influencing bystanders and developing your own opinions: I doubt I'd have tried to prove heterosexuality is blasphemous if someone hadn't said 'No-one here is trying to say heterosexuality is wrong' in one thread.

The benefit of places like this is it lets people cut their teeth in debating. Even if you do get a bit full of yourself, you'll realise that all you can do is claim ground, dig in and state your case. Here you develope your arguments... hopefully.

When it comes to the quality, you have a few with well thought out oppinions. And you have a lot who just spew out rhetoriscs.

Rhetorics in itself is not bad. But rhetorics is supposed to be based on fact and clever argument. Unfortunately most rhetorics used is based on an opinion used as a fact. I.e. 'Bush is stupid' rheotirics or 'Kerry is a flip-flop' rhetorics. These are based on opinions that the fanatcis of each side has accepted for their truths. This is not interesting, only noise.

I very seldom change my point ov view when discussing. The reason for this is that when I give my oppinion it's on subjects I have a reasnably strong oppinion about. But I read a lot of other oppinions, and I get different points of view. I understand more about how other people think, and I discover better ways of arguing for things.

Also I learn a lot of what other people are conserned about, and I get to know facts I didn't know. And often I read subjects I have no strong oppinion about from before, and this helps me form an oppinion on these issues.

So even though I don't often change my point of view, and there's a lot of noise from unintelligent posts, I still can gain a lot from participating on a discussion forum such as this.

I'd be interested if we had a proper, structured, presidential style debate here on the forum on an issue or issues which were found to be contentious.

I think there's a misunderstanding about semantics here.

Debate implies both reason and evidence being used to present both sides of an issue in order to sway opinion, although not necessarily the opinion of the other debators.

Discussion may or may not have facts, but relies more on personal reasoning and tends to be more comparative than persuasive in nature.

Argument is just pointless bitching. No facts. No logic. Just increased post count.

Guess which one we have more of?

I think there's a misunderstanding about semantics here.

Debate implies both reason and evidence being used to present both sides of an issue in order to sway opinion, although not necessarily the opinion of the other debators.

Discussion may or may not have facts, but relies more on personal reasoning and tends to be more comparative in nature.

Argument is just pointless bitching. No facts. No logic. Just increased post count.

Guess which one we have more of?

Man enters room

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

M: Oh! Oh I see!

A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

M: Oh...Sorry...

A: Not at all!



Dang... the Python thread is wearing off on me...

There are a lot of proper discussions on this board. But the "Bush vs Kerry" debates are increasingly turning into rapid flame wars (see Opal Isle's "Kerry spreech" thread) in which angry hawks just can't post their flames fast enough.

There are a lot of proper discussions on this board. But the "Bush vs Kerry" debates are increasingly turning into rapid flame wars (see Opal Isle's "Kerry spreech" thread) in which angry hawks just can't post their flames fast enough.

Well, to be fair, I was doing a fair bit of flamming on that one as well, and I don't think I'm a hawk.

Although, it is kinda sexy in a "Ug, Me Man, You Woman, We Makum Big Baby" sort of way.

The Bush/Kerry debate just seems to be uninteresting and lacks any kind of ooomph, if you know what I mean. There's just people slating whoever they want, which is how far the intellect is stretched. There's no discussion of political methods or anything that requires more attention and time (a commoditiy with which I am well endowed at present, seeing as I can't be bothered to work).

i think if we were to attempt a proper sort of debate, the single biggest problem would be crashers.

invite only debate? that's a thought...

otherwise flaming party crashers will surely ruin the day.