NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, we've had a lot of the top level posters leave this forum, which is sad. So I've ben thinking -especially in regards with the departure of Steph and Zepp and their comments about this board - we really need to try and make this board a little more intelligent. Now, before we do what we usually do and retreat into flames and name-calling, think about it.

A think a good starting point would be in our topics of discussions. Lets stop with the "Vote for me because ------------" threads.

Lets move to philosophy, delve into religion (further than surface "you're wrong arguments"), discuss world-impacting topics of science and political philosophy.

We will of course need to have some people willing to spearhead the movement. I was amazed at the levle of intellect that could be brought into an argument when I saw the responses on the "Descartes was a twit" thread. If people like that could start the intelligent argument and keep them going, we may have something to work with here.

If we can do that, then maybe we can start to kill off the trolls and flamers. All I can ask is we try.

It's good to know that someone else out there has had the same views as I do. Some other threads that need to stop are those "Appreciation Threads".

That's why I created this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404571

To spark intelligent debate, hopefully...

I did read your thread and it made a lot of good points, Euroslavia. I wonder if we could start to compile a list of good, intelligent sources for a variety of topics and possibly get it stickified so it would be easy for general posters to look at.

I sometimes get a bit frustrated with this board. The intelliegence is there, I know it, I've seen it, but it likes to run and hide.

I did read your thread and it made a lot of good points, Euroslavia. I wonder if we could start to compile a list of good, intelligent sources for a variety of topics and possibly get it stickified so it would be easy for general posters to look at.

I sometimes get a bit frustrated with this board. The intelliegence is there, I know it, I've seen it, but it likes to run and hide.

I would be all for that. I could find some way to incoporate those links into that thread.

yeah, we'll break them down into categories (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, foreign affairs, domestic affairs, social security, healthcrae, legalized drug use, theory of war, etc. . .) if we reall wanted to be fancy, we could try and break them down into national interest categories as well.

Moreover, I would say that debates should be limited in the number of people involved because debate fests are horrible.... I post what I think and their are like ten other responses which I have to read to and then respond to and so the amount of posts increase exponentially and nobody gets anything across..so maybe two vs. two or three vs. three debates would be the best and each person has to wait for each other person to express his/her opinion.

So like this:

P1
P2
P3

vs.

P4
P5
P6

So, P1 would state his/her opinion on abortion...P2 would state his/her opinion...P3 would state his/her opinion..then that side has to wait for P4, P5 and P6 to express their opinion and can't post until the cycle is through.

So, once P6 finishes his/her opion P1 can rebuke each claim with his/her own facts/theory.

yeah, we'll break them down into categories (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, foreign affairs, domestic affairs, social security, healthcrae, legalized drug use, theory of war, etc. . .) if we reall wanted to be fancy, we could try and break them down into national interest categories as well.

Very good ideas. I'd be more than willing to do all of the above. Add me on MSN, but for now, I must retire. We'll talk tomorrow hopefully. :)

The Macabees: That's what I'm trying to get at with the whole "Debate Teams" idea. Making these debates limited in the amount of people so that there can be a sense of order.

you should cross-post that into Euroslavia's thread.

For this one, I'm working on putting together a cohesive filing system for debate references.


Something like this.


Abortion (main subject)
pro-life arguments (sub-heading)
source 1 (individual topics for consideration)
source 2
statistics

pro-choice arguments
source 1
source 2
statistics


Or something like that.

Moreover, I would say that debates should be limited in the number of people involved because debate fests are horrible.... I post what I think and their are like ten other responses which I have to read to and then respond to and so the amount of posts increase exponentially and nobody gets anything across..so maybe two vs. two or three vs. three debates would be the best and each person has to wait for each other person to express his/her opinion.

So like this:

P1
P2
P3

vs.

P4
P5
P6

So, P1 would state his/her opinion on abortion...P2 would state his/her opinion...P3 would state his/her opinion..then that side has to wait for P4, P5 and P6 to express their opinion and can't post until the cycle is through.

So, once P6 finishes his/her opion P1 can rebuke each claim with his/her own facts/theory.

I would contend that it would be best to keep each post to a single subject.

Longer posts tend to be tiresome to read and sticking to a single point before moving on makes sure that everyones point is addressed.

Having been on several Debate Teams myself, I find that making sure each subject is addressed is a key to a good discussion.

Regards,
Gaar

I think that what you guys are coming up with is a great idea. I myself have engaged in many debates, but I find myself hesitant to make it an objective to debate when I am on NS. This is because 1) debate issues are overly posted as threads 2) people have repetitive arguments 3) the objective to debate is usually more to state you stance, flamebait, or spam instead of trying to come to a meaningful conclusion 4) the organization is chaotic and the presence of certain types of people is not conducive for certain debates to draw meaningful conclusions. So I just want to say good luck on this and you have my support.

that's well and good... however, this is GENERAL... if you want threads devoted to serious, non-flaming, non trolling debates... then petition the MODS to create a different catagory for serious debates. I, for one, am tired of all of these arguing threads devolving into flamewars, but I cannot condone forcing the General Catagory to become an Intelligent Posts Only thread. General is suppose to be free-form.

a Serious Debate/Discussion catagory will be a good idea. and one I (and my friends) will support.