Civilized Discussion and Debate (spam not permitted)

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:06 pm

As someone who enjoys good conversation, I am interested in fostering an environment conducive to the survival of this endangered species. Too often, threads concerning controversial issues get out of control, resulting in closed threads, emotional fatigue and ill feelings in general amongst members and guests of the forum. More often than not, this occurs when protocols are cast aside in favor of emotional gratification at some point. If only that could be prevented when it first rears its head, perhaps we would see fewer closed threads here in SYM. I would like to think so.

Therefore, I am opening this thread as a preserve for discussion and debate on controversial topics and issues such as foriegn policy, past and current events, and politics in general. While the discussion is not limited to these, more often than not, most "serious" threads in SYM lead to those.

As the creator of this thread, I'm going to introduce rules for conduct and posting here. If you take issue with these rules - even one of them - I ask that you do not post in the thread. If this means the thread ends up being a ghost town...then so be it. The rules are as follows:

1. Spam is not allowed. Posts should be relevant, and while appropriate, topically-related spam artfully employed in the body of a post is harmless (and therefore acceptable), irrelevant posts are unacceptable. I will request these kinds of posts be removed by a moderator.

2. Anyone is welcome to post here. If you've always been interested in the kinds of issues that will come up for discussion here, then this thread is intended for you. Feel free to jump in. Even if it's to simply ask a question about a certain post (for the sake of clarity, curiosity, etc), please do.

3. Observe the hot-headed restriction. If at any time in the course of a discussion/debate, you as a participant begin to feel hot under the collar, angry, upset, or offended, then you must take emotional leave from the thread. This means that the moment you recognize this in yourself (or someone else notices and informs you), you must retire from the thread for at least 12 hours (this means no posting) and take a breather. Play some games. Feed your goldfish. Take a long walk. Whatever you need to do to distance your mind from the issue that has you upset, do it. The hot-headed restriction is designed to prevent a poster's passions from ruling their thoughts. There are no exceptions to this.

4. All personal differences will be worked out via PMs. This relates to rule #3 above. This thread is NOT the place to work out personal differences. If personal differences arise between contributors to the thread, I expect this to be worked out before participation in discussion is resumed.

5. Observe the protocols of honest debate. I will ask for this to be enforced most stringently, since in my estimation most flame wars find their origins in the disregard of these protocols. In a nutshell, these protocols dictate courtesy to others, the willingness to subject your opinions to the criticism of others, keeping a handle on your passions for the sake of discussion, and the acceptance that you will be asked to substantiate your opinions by others involved in a debate or discussion. Protocol also requires that you respond to the queries of others. Repeatedly ignoring a question, instead of making it go away, usually has the effect of making one appear dishonest.

Those are the five ground rules. With that out of the way, we can carry on. Feel free to open it up. Since it's close to bed time for me, I'll wait till tomorrow before I set my mind on something to discuss. If you beat me to it, I'll just join in.

EDIT - I see that I neglected to mention something very important. My bed was looking rather attractive as I typed the last paragraph above.

6. Topics for discussion will not be a continuation of other threads. A number of topics have already been brought up for discussion in SYM, and therefore have their own threads. Use the SEARCH function if in doubt. Since this thread is not intended to be a convenient catch-all for topics already discussed elsewhere, I ask that posters do some research before posting. I reserve the right to disallow any topic from being discussed in this thread.

That's the sixth ground rule. If my coffee-starved brain is functioning clearly enough at this time, that should be the last.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:17 pm

O.k, how do you (this question is directed to anyone) feel about the Decisions that Goerge Bush has made, as president? Like not letting Homosexuals Wed.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:48 pm

Darth, that's already been covered in another thread, as I recall. I think this one's really got to be chosen by Chanak. Just my POV.

Oskatat · Post by **Oskatat** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:02 pm

Besides, the point has been and will be discussed so much.

Why is that? when can people just let something rest (for a while)

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:17 pm

Here's one. I've no statistical research or facts, just real life, personal experience with the problem.

How do people feel about a general decline in health care, and education system quality? I know it's been brought up as topics drifted in other threads, but I don't recall it being directly started as a topic before.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:27 pm

@fable, sorry wasn't aware.

@Magrus, I think its getting very bad, Health Care should be a world wide thing, I mean like the children in Africa for example or in other countries... As for Education, I see a lot of drop outs, due to numerous reasons.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:59 am

Not only that, hospitals are closing around me. Not enough money coming in to keep them running. Can you believe that? People in need of aid can't get it because of hospitals shutting down.

Health care has come down to insurance companies now. It's ridiculous. My mother works for a university as an accountant for the hospital under the local university (UofR, I'm sure Cuch knows it, don't know if anyone else does.

). They had great health care for years, they just switched to a cheap one two years ago. My mom had to switch doctors because they laughed at her when she told them her health insurance provider was changed and told her to go somewhere else. Can you believe that? She works for a med school and hospital, and they gave her health care that her doctor turned her away because of.

Not only that, as I've mentioned time and again with CE on the board, mental health care, across the board here in the US is abominable. It's like traveling into a twisted alternate dimension of sadism from people with doctorites.

Schools are another thing. Oddest kid gets picked on, assualted, then expelled to keep school ratings higher. Expelling one student is better for the school's reputation than expelling the numerous bullies assualting them. The teachers are underpaid, and in my experience, clueless and under qualified. You could tell a number of them chose their career as a teacher because they either were stumped on what to do with themselves, or were going for different career, failed to make it and settled for teaching the same topic instead. Not to knock teachers, I've had some wonderful ones and think it is great that people devote their lives to teaching. Some people just should not teach. They do damage and are incompetant.

Not only that, they don't teach you things you need to know for real life. I don't need the upper reaches of math they taught in high school. I cannot think of any everyday life situation where I will need to start doing some problem involve calculus or cosign or whatever. No, they should teach you money management, and how to change a tire, or change your oil, stuff like that. Stuff you'll USE. I will have money, I will use it. I won't need to square root a negative numer. It's ludicrous.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:10 am

Topic for discussion

@fable: Thank you.

@Magrus: The state of health care, and the educational system in the United States - in need of improvement? Or is it just fine, and people are merely bellyaching? This can open up for discussion here.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:03 am

As for the Hospitable, what they did to your mother was not right at all. Andthats why I didn't want to send Racheal to a mental hospitable, Beacuse 1 I don't think there are any in bryan, and 2 beacuse of te way you describded it. And I don't really get problems, my dad and Cousin are both in the army, so I get Tricare.

Now as for the Educaion, Exactly what I have been thinking and saying for years and years to come. I used to rais my hand in the middle of class and say, "Ma'am, (or sir) How will this help me when I'm a boutny hunter?" "And they would pause and try to keep teaching, so I would constantly do that over and over again until they gave me a reason, and if I saw in any way that it wouldn't be able to help me when I'm a nounty hunter, then I would refuse to work.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:09 am

I agree with Magrus that (at schools) they're teaching wrong things. Not all is wrong, but some things could improve. There really should be a speech class, where students can learn how to express themselves publically. This not only clarifies the things they want to tell, but it'll also give them more confidence (if lacking) to say what they want to say. THAT will really help people.

In the Netherlands, healthcare is becoming a nightmare, too. Insurance companies pay too little, forcing numerous hospitals bankrupt or near-bankrupt. They're also stressing the physicians, who are currently on strike demanding higher salaries. They get a certain budget for receipts/drugs/etc. which includes their pay! I find that unacceptable. People who need certain medications, should get that, instead of a cheaper 'alternative'.

Waiting lists for a lot of surgeries (including the life-threatening ones) are very often no longer measured in weeks and there is a shortage of staff in both the medical as the educational sector. An unhealthy situation.

Is it a worldwide problem? Or are there countries in which healthcare and education are (still) OK?

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:25 am

@Chanak, debate

The one thing that I think is important to remember is that most of the serious discussions here are discussions, not debates. The idea isn't to "prove" that you are right or to "show the other side" that they are wrong. The point is, IMO, to discuss, and where possible, to come to a consensus. If that isn't possible, to repsectfully disagree.

I know that when I first started posting I would often find myself defending postions in a conversation that I didn't really agree with or that I had taken up casually. I love to argue, but never acquising that someone else is right causes endless bickering and leads nowhere.

For example, I used to post alot about things like philosophy and international policy. I went to school for those subjects, I have very personal, nuanced views about both those topics. In the past, I have made the mistake of taking attacks on my positions personally. IMO, getting attached like that usually leads to problems.

Posting about Bush or US imperialism is always tricky, but not listenting to what the other side has to say in a discussion is the quickest way I know to ruin a conversation and anger the rest of the participants in the conversation.

Edit- @ik, Healthcare

The tension that ik mentions, between access and efficiency in healthcare, is the main tension in the debate between public and private healthcare, isn't it? I know that many Europeans and Canadians I have spoken with believe that the lack of public health care in the US is barbaric. On the other hand, many Americans I know think that wait of more than a year for elective surgery are prime reasons why they wouldn't dream of making health care public.

winter rose · Post by **winter rose** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:32 am

About the rules of this thread, and the whole Civilized Discussion and Debate - I don't quite understand how it would be possible to have a debate or discussion where members "never" get offended, offensive, upset or personal. After joining SYM a few months back, I have noticed some very ordinary things.

Discussions and debates are all about a difference of opinion. And we as humans - it is only natural for us to get hot headed or upset at times. It is not possible (from my pont of view) to have a discussion devoid of any emotional feelings to it. So locking a thread because two people can't agree is a bit pointless. yes lock it if they start getting abusive, even posts can be edited. But locking it just because the discussion is a bit heated is not worth it.

Firstly, some members have an issue admitting they are wrong. I mean if somebody else has a point or a fact, why get personal about it? One can't always be right.

Secondly we as individuals will side with the person who holds similar views as ourselves. A lot of times - if not always. That is not to say that the other person is wrong. But simply ,we should keep an open mind.

Thirdly, blaming one person or side and finding faults in them is in my opnion - just pathetic and wrong. When there is a discussion, two or more people are involved. So why not find faults in both rather than just one?

I have seen people insult and abuse and put others down, and nothing happened. Yet when they were made to see how they acted, they started getting offended that people dared to point such an issue out. That I believe needs to change.

When finding faults, it would only be fair to point out how "each person" was in the wrong. Rather then pointing at just one person, while completely ignoring the faults of the other.

Anyway I apologize if this was off topic, I felt it needed to be said.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:22 am

[QUOTE=Chanak]As someone who enjoys good conversation, I am interested in fostering an environment conducive to the survival of this endangered species. Too often, threads concerning controversial issues get out of control, resulting in closed threads, emotional fatigue and ill feelings in general amongst members and guests of the forum. More often than not, this occurs when protocols are cast aside in favor of emotional gratification at some point. [/quote]

I am also a person who enjoys both good conversation, serious discussions about specific topics, and debates. Over the years I have participated in many discussions about controversial topics here at SYM, and in my opinion, the most common problems that occur are depending on two factors:

1. That most people don't really know how the difference between valid and invalid arguments, and that discussion participants get stuck because the arguments presented are on totally different levels.

An example of this is when person A writes "Country X has unfairly attacked country Z and caused thousands of deaths of innocent civilians." and person B replies "I feel hurt and sad by your cold and callous attack of my country".

Another example is when person A writes "I think religion/ideology/belief system X contains discriminatory views on certain groups of people, which I find immoral" and person B responds with "You are more immoral yourself who don't believe in religion/ideology/belief system X because not believing means you are a depraved person."

This may sound parodic, but both these types of arguments from persons B have been seen frequently in discussions here at SYM and both are invalid as arguments. Whereas it may feel very important to person B that s/he feels hurt by person A, feeling hurt is not an argument that concerns the actual issue of country X's foreign policy, but in instead a fallacy called "appeal to emotion" or emotional argument. In the second example, person B may dislike and condemn people who do not share his or her belief system, but person B does not provide valid arguments for this view, instead s/he is making an ad hominen, a personal attack on person A. Ad hominems are also not valid arguments, but a fallacy. Another very common form of invalid arguments is the strawman where a person critisise or attack a statement that is not held by the opponent.

The ability to present and defend your own opinions, and critisise others opinions with valid arguments, it not spontaneous and intuititive to most people unless they have learned it, and especially when people feel upset, it is common to conduct discussions by using invalid arguments as if they were valid, and that always creates problems in any type of serious discussion.

[quote="Cuchulain]
The one thing that I think is important to remember is that most of the serious discussions here are discussions"]

In a professional or "formal" debate the participants are supposed to prepare their cases and then exchange arguments and critisism in front of an audiance. The debates we see here at SYM are of a less formal type, but I still think that the same "rules" should be valid for both debates and serious discussions, ie use of valid arguments and an effort to avoid the most disruptive fallacies.

Not everyone is trained in debate or serious discussion, and people should not need to be in my opinion, but some basic abilities such as read what the other people have written in their posts, not more, not less and don't take things personal goes a very long way when discussing the most heated and emotionally engaging topics.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:43 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]In a professional or "formal" debate the participants are supposed to prepare their cases and then exchange arguments and critisism in front of an audiance. The debates we see here at SYM are of a less formal type, but I still think that the same "rules" should be valid for both debates and serious discussions, ie use of valid arguments and an effort to avoid the most disruptive fallacies. [/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, CE, that's very rare on publically available Web forums--or anywhere in life.

The tendency to play word games in order to justify almost any argument, or alternatively, to reduce the visible spectrum of all arguments to only those one emotionally believes, precludes the kind of honest, open debate you seek.

That doesn't even begin to touch upon the subject of research, which is essential to move away from BS sessions and towards real discussion.

At best, I think these forums offer an opportunity to explode myths with fact, and to explore the different but legitimate ways each of us uses to view the same world. And that's always a good source of knowledge.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:49 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]In a professional or "formal" debate the participants are supposed to prepare their cases and then exchange arguments and critisism in front of an audiance. The debates we see here at SYM are of a less formal type, but I still think that the same "rules" should be valid for both debates and serious discussions, ie use of valid arguments and an effort to avoid the most disruptive fallacies.

Not everyone is trained in debate or serious discussion, and people should not need to be in my opinion, but some basic abilities such as read what the other people have written in their posts, not more, not less and don't take things personal goes a very long way when discussing the most heated and emotionally engaging topics.[/QUOTE]
I agree CE, and was actually trying to say something similar in my post. Maybe I didn't get it across well. A formal debate follows rules, specifically in reference to proofs. I don't expect any individual who posts here to have knowledge of logical proofs, which is why I said that we usually have discussions instead of debates. Due to the very nature of GB, I don't think any attempt at a formal debate would be a good idea.

The fallicies that I find here include the ones you named CE, but others also abound- begging the question and equivocation are very common, and arguments about global politics can often be boiled down to "Country X is a hegemon, therefore Country X is a hegemon."

Also there is a problem with underlying assumptions that people use to prove conditional statements. Shady statistics, generalizations, and generalites about in internet chatrooms, and unfortunately GB is not completely exempted. Please make sure that if you assume something in an argument, you are willing to have that assumption questioned.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:03 am

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Also there is a problem with underlying assumptions that people use to prove conditional statements. Shady statistics, generalizations, and generalites about in internet chatrooms, and unfortunately GB is not completely exempted. Please make sure that if you assume something in an argument, you are willing to have that assumption questioned.[/QUOTE]

Even more problematic, Cuch, is what we might term the anaerobic nature of Web activity. Like draws like draws like. Errors are used to bolster fallacious arguments that in turn are adduced elsewhere in support of yet greater flaws. World views develop in hothouses where everyone supports everyone else, providing a layer of agreement against reality.

Reality itself isn't immune from this. A person who does nothing but watch Fox news, for example, might come away with startling conclusions based on inaccurate reporting or biases offered in lieu of fact; and that's just one perspective. As much can be said of most nations with a majority culture. But we run into people and situations all the time (hopefully) that challenge our narrow views through realworld interactions.

There need be nothing like that, on the Web. You could read for dozens of hours and look at nothing but the blogs of people who claim Tony Blair is out to assassinate all other European leaders and form a Euro-dictatorship with himself in charge. The isolation from reality is complete, and logic is reduced to self-referential fallacies.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:30 pm

Cuchulain82 wrote:I agree CE, and was actually trying to say something similar in my post. Maybe I didn't get it across well.

I think you are just more polite than I am

A formal debate follows rules, specifically in reference to proofs. I don't expect any individual who posts here to have knowledge of logical proofs, which is why I said that we usually have discussions instead of debates. Due to the very nature of GB, I don't think any attempt at a formal debate would be a good idea.

I totally agree, the fun thing with SYM is to exchange opinions and ideas with many different people with different backgrounds. It would kill most serious discussions if we demanded that people followed the formal requirements.

However, I do think the most disruptive actions, such as I mentioned above, are easily avoided by everyone regardless of background, training and knowledge. Reading what is written in a post and replying to that and not something else, is not difficult since everybody here has sufficient language knowledge to post here to begin with. Ad hominems are also easy to avoid if one just focus on the topic instead of focusing on personal aspects and ones owns possible negative emotional responses.

The fallicies that I find here include the ones you named CE, but others also abound- begging the question and equivocation are very common, and arguments about global politics can often be boiled down to "Country X is a hegemon, therefore Country X is a hegemon."

I agree, and this is true in much of everyday life as well here at SYM - not to mention so called "political debates"!

For instance, in Sweden, the entire EMU debate prior the referendum, was full of begging the question, equivocation and strawmen and totally lacking in factual arguments. Btw, another common fallacy I've seen here at SYM but not so often in vivo, is the middle road.

Please make sure that if you assume something in an argument, you are willing to have that assumption questioned.

Again I agree completely, and I believe this is related to another topic that has been discussed although not so recently, and that's the idea many people do not expect, or are not used to, having to defend their opinions. Maybe because they live in a more homogenous environment, or because they are young and may have limited experience, they are not used to being questioned and thus react defensive. This subject was elaborated in this thread:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=31639

Fable] Unfortunately wrote:
I realise that, but as I wrote to Cuchulain above, I still believe the most communication-disruptive elements can be avoided in life as at internet forums. In fact, I would think internet forums provide better conditions than normal talking for avoiding them, since you can read, re-read and quote what other people have posted, instead of constructing their sentences from memory.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:25 pm

CE, could you summarize what is wrong with the middle road?

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:10 am

@CE, fable, fallicies

As far as ad hominem fallicies go, anyone who uses one is in good company- it is GWB's favorite method of dealing with dissention! When someone questions a decision or goes public with data that is harmful to the administration, the administration regularly takes the postion of "that person doesn't know what they are talking about/is lying/isn't a patriot/isn't a true american."

@CE, ik

I don't know what a middle road fallacy is either- is it some form of Amphiboly (that's what I got when I googled it)?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:44 am

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]As far as ad hominem fallicies go, anyone who uses one is in good company- it is GWB's favorite method of dealing with dissention! When someone questions a decision or goes public with data that is harmful to the administration, the administration regularly takes the postion of "that person doesn't know what they are talking about/is lying/isn't a patriot/isn't a true american."[/quote]

Politicians everywhere favor this approach. In fact, Livy, who chronicled the doings of the Roman Republic, mentions frequent recourse by both the parties of the aristocrats and the populists to this tactic. It's also seen frequently in Christian Ante-Nicene rhetoric, among the various early Christian sects and against all non-Christians: "The X cult believes Y, which is of course a debased version of what we believe. We believe Y, but we have it directly from God."