A question of debate.

[PLAYER57832]

This whole DM/Fireside Tavern/Real U, etc issue raises a question.

Is there room in CC for reasoned, intelligent debate... and just what, exactly does that mean?

I am not trying to tell anyone what to do here, I am asking. If the whole reason for the forum is to basically make fun, talk of light issues .. so be it.

If it is serious debate, though, I think there is some general confusion/disagreement over just what that means. Personally, I think we all grow from listening and debating each other. BUT, the key is to listen first, then debate. If all you want to do is push forward your viewpoint... then that is all you will do and soon folks will be tired.

Granted, there is a fine line at times. Socrates was famous for arguing points more or less to argue ... questioning to get the person to come to their own conclusions or to reach better understanding. To me, and I know many others, debate is sort of a chess match. I DO try to "win", but only in the sense of ensuring that I understand the other person and they understand me. In a few cases, I may "play devil's advocate" .. specifically argue a point that is not my own, to really get at a point/understand someone else's view ...but I make it clear that is what I am doing (with a few minor and pretty obvious exceptions .. the plain jokes, etc.). As in "OK, for the sake of argument if I were to say X, you would say?"... etc.

I would say that to debate, you attack the idea and not the person. To attack the idea means you have to first UNDERSTAND the idea. That means actually paying attention to what the other person is saying and not picking out key phrases and then responding with your own set of phrases.

A classic Saturday night live skit (you ##@@, and you #@$$$) was funny because folks understood well that was not how one really debated ... it was just what we sometimes wished we could say! Now I am not sure many would even see that as funny. I think many feel that is precisely what debate means.

Why does it even matter? In CC ... not at all, to be honest. But, I would suggest that in life, if you stop listening, you stop learning .... and that is pretty sad.

For me, CC is a nice place to "chat" with folks from all over the world (oh yeah .. and play a few games). I could probably find other places, and, should opportunities cease here, likely will ... but so far, I am "happy" with what CC "provides".

[Frigidus]

This whole DM/Fireside Tavern/Real U, etc issue raises a question.

Is there room in CC for reasoned, intelligent debate... and just what, exactly does that mean?

I am not trying to tell anyone what to do here, I am asking. If the whole reason for the forum is to basically make fun, talk of light issues .. so be it.

If it is serious debate, though, I think there is some general confusion/disagreement over just what that means. Personally, I think we all grow from listening and debating each other. BUT, the key is to listen first, then debate. If all you want to do is push forward your viewpoint... then that is all you will do and soon folks will be tired.

Granted, there is a fine line at times. Socrates was famous for arguing points more or less to argue ... questioning to get the person to come to their own conclusions or to reach better understanding. To me, and I know many others, debate is sort of a chess match. I DO try to "win", but more to "carry on the game", to increase understanding, than simply to debate (though there are times )

I would say that to debate, you attack the idea and not the person. To attack the idea means you have to first UNDERSTAND the idea. That means actually paying attention to what the other person is saying and not picking out key phrases and then responding with your own set of phrases.

A classic Saturday night live skit (you ##@@, and you #@$$$) was funny because folks understood well that was not how one really debated ... it was just what we sometimes wished we could say! Now I am not sure many would even see that as funny. I think many feel that is precisely what debate means.

Why does it even matter? In CC ... not at all, to be honest. But, I would suggest that in life, if you stop listening, you stop learning .... and that is pretty sad.

For me, CC is a nice place to "chat" with folks from all over the world (oh yeah .. and play a few games). I could probably find other places, and, should opportunities cease here, likely will ... but so far, I am "happy" with what CC "provides".

I feel that all of us have the capability of having a civil conversation, we just don't always take advantage of it. Indeed, that was what DM and Snorri tried (and failed, more miserably than one might have thought possible) to get across. I did not attempt to join the Fireside Tavern, and I doubt I would have been accepted there anyways. However, I support the idea of a civil discussion forum. The nice thing about usergroups is that we are our own moderators. Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to create a usergroup that encompasses the entire CC community. All would be welcome, and all would be strongly encouraged to join. If we want to get the mods and admins off our backs, wouldn't creating such a group do just that? We could have our own rules regarding who can and can't post (a system in which, I'd hope, a perma-ban would never be acceptable).

That would probably never happen, but I think it would be good to try...

[Gregrios]

I like to debate with honest to God answers unless the circumstance has become a complete joke. The whole winning aspect of it suits alot of people but not me. That kind of debating seems quite petty to me, not to mention a little childish but that's just my opinion. To me, debate is for learning the truth or teaching the truth, either way I guess I'm agreeing with you.

[PLAYER57832]

I like to debate with honest to God answers unless the circumstance has become a complete joke. The whole winning aspect of it suits alot of people but not me. That kind of debating seems quite petty to me, not to mention a little childish but that's just my opinion. To me, debate is for learning the truth or teaching the truth, either way I guess I'm agreeing with you.

I did not mean "winning" in the sense of the other person losing. I meant "winning" in the sense of truly putting one's point out there ... and answering challenges fully (which means actually listening to those challenges!). I perhaps should have chosen a differant word...

[Gregrios]

I like to debate with honest to God answers unless the circumstance has become a complete joke. The whole winning aspect of it suits alot of people but not me. That kind of debating seems quite petty to me, not to mention a little childish but that's just my opinion. To me, debate is for learning the truth or teaching the truth, either way I guess I'm agreeing with you.

I did not mean "winning" in the sense of the other person losing. I meant "winning" in the sense of truly putting one's point out there ... and answering challenges fully (which means actually listening to those challenges!). I perhaps should have chosen a differant word...

I see. "Winning" really wasn't the best word to use. The way I took it was that it comes down to what your motives are for debating. There's the motive of winning and then there's the motive of simply speeking your opinion. When your only motive is to win, it's the nature of the beast to ignore all good points and carry on with nonsense. That's the obsessive competiveness that many including myself fall into from time to time. I just don't fall into that state as often as others but you see it all the time. You can identify this with the words and demeanor of the individual and thier post. This is what I thought of when you said "winning the debate".

[PLAYER57832]

I like to debate with honest to God answers unless the circumstance has become a complete joke. The whole winning aspect of it suits alot of people but not me. That kind of debating seems quite petty to me, not to mention a little childish but that's just my opinion. To me, debate is for learning the truth or teaching the truth, either way I guess I'm agreeing with you.

I did not mean "winning" in the sense of the other person losing. I meant "winning" in the sense of truly putting one's point out there ... and answering challenges fully (which means actually listening to those challenges!). I perhaps should have chosen a differant word...

I see. "Winning" really wasn't the best word to use. The way I took it was that it comes down to what your motives are for debating. There's the motive of winning and then there's the motive of simply speeking your opinion.

I would say there is a third and more important goal ... that of effectively finding out what others, particularly those in opposition, think and why they think as they do.

Often the best way to get at that is to debate. Rather than "winning" I probably should have said "convince". BUT, that does not mean necessarily convince everyone that I am right ... mostly convince that I really and truly do have a basis for my opinion. Often times, you get to a point when you just have to "agree to disagree"... but the idea is to at least know why you disagree. Take the whole "God" thing, for example. Plenty of people here either are or claim to be atheists. Am I somehow going to convince them to "go religious". Almost certainly not. But, I will try to convince them that not everyone who believes is a raving idiot .. then that is enough.

[Matroshka]

If you are in a serious (professional?) debate, like for school, then then main goal is "winning". But I think you're just being a dick if that is your main goal in a forum debate.

When I argue/debate on the forums, it's to put my point of view out there and to also see what others' point of views are. I know I'm not near always right, and it's a good learning experience to put my views against others, either reinforcing or changing my own.

[PLAYER57832]

If you are in a serious (professional?) debate, like for school, then then main goal is "winning". But I think you're just being a dick if that is your main goal in a forum debate.

When I argue/debate on the forums, it's to put my point of view out there and to also see what others' point of views are. I know I'm not near always right, and it's a good learning experience to put my views against others, either reinforcing or changing my own.

I chose my words wrong and have edited.

To me, "winning" in this sense means understanding .. not defeating anyone else. (as much an ideological differance as a poor word choice, perhaps). But, I have clarified.

[jonesthecurl]

It seems to me that this forum is in no need of a straightjacket.

Sometimes we get into serious philosophical or moral discussions. Sometimes we (or some of us) enjoy flinging insults.

Sometimes we bait each other. Sometimes we just have a laugh. It is in the nature of the forum that we pick u the ball and run with it, whatever happens to be going on at that time.

Even within a thread there will be times (the tedious ones mostly) where the dialogue goes "listen!" "no, YOU Listen" "did you read what I said ?" "Did YOu read what I said?" " Dick!" "Plonker!". There are other times where we just get into a circular argument.

Sometimes we have extremely funny moments. The "Shut up" thread, unplanned, and uncontanable, was for me one of the funniest ever.

For a po-faced discussion which is taking itself too seriously to be interrupted from time to time with "your mom" is (sometimes) priceless. And sometimes worthless.

Sometimes we have long-running serious explorations of each others' positions - the "abortion" thread I felt was good for that, barring an occcasional outbreak of blind bigotry. Various religious threads have worked as discussion rather than rant 70% of the time.

Even politics on rare occasions rises above "pinko"/"Fascist" - flinging.

But the joy of the forum is that you never know what a thread will turn into (unless it has the word "football" in).

That's why it should be as rules-light as we can make it. Even though sometimes some people go too far.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not suggesting any new rules to this forum ... if anything, perhaps a new forum. It just seems that some people (not any of those who have posted here, by-the-way) have differant definitions of debate.

[Matroshka]

If you are in a serious (professional?) debate, like for school, then then main goal is "winning". But I think you're just being a dick if that is your main goal in a forum debate.

When I argue/debate on the forums, it's to put my point of view out there and to also see what others' point of views are. I know I'm not near always right, and it's a good learning experience to put my views against others, either reinforcing or changing my own.

I chose my words wrong and have edited.

To me, "winning" in this sense means understanding .. not defeating anyone else. (as much an ideological differance as a poor word choice, perhaps). But, I have clarified.

Ah, ok. I was thinking of winning as defeating someone else.