Debate Etiquette!

Surreality: "What if they're saying something utterly contrary to what you're actually thinking or what you believe, and attributing it to you? I actually lump this sort of behavior in with personal attacks in its deliberate form. It's more subtle than typing, "surreality is a baby-eating puppykicker! Burn her!" sure, but attributing baby-eating or puppykicking to someone in an indirect fashion is just as obnoxious, and strikes me as being cowardly to boot."

There does seem to be a deal of "Frankenstein Villager" posting, both in debate and discussions, someone inflames the crowd and then they are all off to burn down the windmill... I usually spend a while reading backward to try and figure out what set off the furore and it's usually some kind of misunderstanding, willful or otherwise.

I just wonder if debate is even possible in such a wide ranging international group where a lot of the participants seem incapable of sticking with logic and avoiding entirely subjective entrenched POVs - and then feel defensive and angry when any puts forward a counter argument?

Sweeping statements from me again!

 

I took debate in high school. First, there has to be a positive proposition. For ex., Should capital punishment be abolished in all states? instead of Should capital punishment not be abolished in all states? In addition, there are two teams and two sides. The affirmative and the negative. The affirmative goes up first then the negative, (counterargument against the affirmative), cross examination and etc. Both sides have to prove their point with tons of research and it is up to the judges to decide who is the winner. Any logical fallacies are highly looked down upon. The movie, The Great Debaters can be a good example to see how it plays out. I agree that "debate" used in here isn't a battle between two sides with an outcome of a winner.

 

I get the impression that "Debate" in this case is mostly "Discussion where dissenting opinions are encouraged", which I always found was much more natural than formal debating anyway, so I like the current setup a lot.

That said, my suggestions are:

Enforce that the poster's English has to be at least coherent - (I'm sick of seeing posts where the spelling, grammar and punctuation are so vague that it's near unreadable and then, after giving them the benefit of the doubt that English may not be their first language, finding out that that they grew up in the UK or US and just have horrible communication skills. The ESL folks here definitely aren't the ones letting the side down!)

Allow the use of strong language - (Not cursing and swearing, but simply stating one's point without surrounding it with tag questions and hedge words. If I want to say "It is obvious that black is a darker colour than grey" I don't want to have to rephrase it as "I believe that, in most cases, black is darker, at least on the hue/saturation front, than grey. YMMV " to avoid offending people's sensibilities - It's a debate forum, so expect opinions and facts to be bandied about with aplomb.)

Encourage people to post threads without saying "Mods, please delete if this is a copy!" - (See above - it's just a personal tic, but I can dream, right?)

Give anyone who posts an ad-hominem some kind of punishment - (Suspension, strike, insulting CT, whatever. It's just not the done thing in a civilised forum to call other participants names, when you should be critiquing their logic.)

...I'll add more when I think on.

 

I consider my debate style to be more on the conversational side than on the confrontational, lol.

"Clean debate" to me veers away from being confrontational, defensive or elitist.
Clean debate gets a conversation rolling and educates but does not necessarily boil down to insulting people's perceived intellect to make you feel like you're smarter than another person. Clean debate also stays on topic, doesn't let things get too personal or weighed down by personal politics or prejudices.

In my time here it seems most people are basically ok and polite, but I have seen some rather sharp replies flung at new members, lol....And I don't really care for sharpness. I mean really, this is a big forum with TONS of info on it. Yes, you can use the search feature to find what's been asked before, but at the same time there is a ton of info here and I can see how some new folks just want to ask their question and get fresh answers/perspective vs. fishing through all the old threads to get the answers they need. This place is probably pretty overwhelming to someone new to the hobby ...who might also be new to dancing in forums too. Allowing them to ask the question also warms them up to connecting with other forum members too. Forum members that are currently active and chatty!

Like some questions are just eternal and I get a little chapped when I see someone tear a noob a new one for asking a question like why do things cost as much as they do in this hobby (just as an example). Yeah, that person could hit the search feature, but really....it doesn't kill any of us who are experienced folks in the world of BJD's to answer a question. If you feel like answering that same question one more time is gonna give you an aneurysm then just LET IT GO....don't answer it, lmao, and take a few deep breaths! I feel like those of us here who are well versed almost have an obligation to help school new people. And I stress the word "School" here...not "Scold"! If you feel like you're about to give someone a scolding try to catch yourself!

And in my personal opinion, if you've had a crap day at the office, got in a fight with your other half, were recently pushed into a pit of snakes or got your paw caught in a bear trap (figuratively or literally) you should probably avoid replying to folks on the forum for a few days since odds are your craptastic mood will become evident in your sharp answers. Don't let your bad day lead you to being harsh on the forum.

 

I usually try to stay very polite, myself. I hate to step on people's toes, and I *really* hate to hurt anybody's feelings. Of course, when my buttons get pushed, I might get a little bit snarky, but I always try to be sure I'm not directing that at any particular person. At a situation? Sure. I've been known to rail against situations. But I try to make sure I'm not attacking any person. (well, I'm sure most of us are like that!)

If it's purely a matter of opinion, then it's purely a matter of opinion, but if it's a debate over an ethical issue, then I try to find some kind of precedent (unless there's a precedent that I consider completely morally wrong, which has been known to happen, though not on doll-related subjects, thank goodness!), and if it's a matter of facts then I definitely want to bring data to the party!

I think in a clean debate, there's room for strong rhetoric, and people should certainly try to make a compelling argument for their side, but it's important not to make things personal in terms of going on the attack. Definitely I believe in being civil with everyone, even if you think those people are wrong wrong wrong! *grin* No reason why debaters can't all be nice, right?

... well, nice-ish, at any rate.

=^__^=
Anneko

 

Debate should be a polite, impersonal, calm discussion of dissenting points of view.

I have several very strong opinions I've never stated on these boards because past experience and other's posts lead me to conclude they would be considered "phobic" or inflammatory and that many people would be highly offended by what I think (regardless of whether I mean to offend). So yanno wut? I keep it to myself most of the time.

Being able to politely and logically state one's opinion does not always guarantee civility from others, so there are some subjects that clearly must be handled with caution, but handled nevertheless. If we avoid a touchy subject it just gets awkward.

 

What is your debate style?
I'm an open-minded person, so I view everything fairly. I usually just create a clear argument until I've got my thoughts across (and usually try and keep it quite short ) but I don't really think about it, I just write what the question stirs up in me.

What do you think is acceptable in a "clean" debate? What behaviors do you think are unacceptable?
To me, a clean debate simply means not swearing. I think that in places like the general discussion bored you should be polite and avoid saying anything that could be viewed as offensive. But I believe that in a debate, anything should be acceptable. A debate is about voicing your views and opinions in a place where it is acceptable to do so, so as long as it is on-topic (ie, not insults directed at another person) then I'd say anything goes. However, I do think it is important to be respectful of other people's opinions - there is a difference between saying what you believe and being completely rude and ignorant.

So I suppose: off-topic, insulting arguments and criticising other people's views are unacceptable. Basically, attacking other people rather than the topic.

 

I don't know how formal, high school debates work; however, I think people should be allowed to change their mind if the evidence is convincing enough. I also feel that a person has the right to not know what side they want to take because either both sides are appealing, or something like that.

People need to think things through. If you think that you might completely go off on a topic, don't go into it.

I think personal attacks are a given for what shouldn't be included. Debates sometimes tend to lean one way on an issue (like most people in the thread think one way, rather than the other). Instead of the minority doing their best to logically provide evidence to support their point, someone always ends up shouting "That's elitist" (for example) and there goes the thread.

After that, you get a couple of pages where people are trying to defend their views as not being elitist, it doesn't stay on the topic of the debate anymore, and it gets locked. It only takes one or a few people to bring things to a screeching halt.

When you decide to make things personal rather than about the topic at hand, you ruin the spirit of the debate.

 

I don't have a style I just answer the question put to me as honestly as I can.
I don't trawl through all 70 pages of people's arguments.
I do think people take some of the comments personally, I also think some of the are meant to be taken personally. Which is when I tire of the topic. Bickering bores me and I lose interest. These topics are debates, two different opinions. I don't see the point in fighting back and forth who is more "right" or more "moral".
I prefer to say my bit and move on to the next topic, I wouldn't stay in a thread justify my opinion. I just give my side of the debate, either one or the other. A yes or no and why I feel that way.

 

I have often seen unacceptable responses to others opinions to be some form of this:

Then what!?! A baby is lying in the road about to be hit by a car, you just leave it there? or "So you must think it would be fine to steal the Mona Lisa and call it your own"These sorts of comments are ludicrous, simpleminded, and immature (immaturity having no age limit).

I cannot stand it when people who have a reasonable different opinion are attacked in a broad personal way. It is unacceptable that people assume someone is uncaring and thoroughly horrible because they don't care to the same degree about some issue as others, or have different opinions and thoughts as the majority.

 

What is your debate style? Usually I just throw my opinion out there, I'm not really out to force anyone to believe what I believe but don't want to be forced either. If I get into a really heated debate I will do research and facts of course, But I hated debate class in high school I'm trying to be a little less timid because at-least from my opinion on certain forums you get jumped for not sharing an opinion. I just read one today in these forums actually.


What do you think is acceptable in a "clean" debate? What behaviors do you think are unacceptable? I think insults are a big one, though people try and hide it through intelligent words and nicely written paragraphs. When it boils down to it , they are still insulting. I also think theres a lot of elitism behind peoples attitudes that can be done away with. I've kinda always tried to live by the motto " I do not like what you have to say but will defend it to the death."

 

Hmm, I disagree. I think, depending on the context, those questions can be perfectly legitimate. For example, if someone states it's OK to steal others' doll art and claim ownership, it's fair to ask if their opinion goes so far as to apply to worldwide-known designs. These types of questions are a good way to challenge someone to think about the ultimate result of their stance, and the their response can go a long way toward clarifying exactly what they mean and how strongly they really feel about their own opinion.

True debating involves challenging others to defend and extrapolate. It doesn't mean just sitting around and sharing opinions in a non-interactive, non-critical manner.