Standard of debate on here
satansbed
Posts: 2,139
i have spent a fair bit of time on here, but in the last few months ive been on an irish politics forum, and the standard of debate is so much higher, everything here is so polarizing, you either hate the isralies or love them, you hate the government or.... well actually both sides hate the government, it just depends who is in charge. you hate religion or you love it etc etc etc. everything is so black and white nobody sees the grey in the middle. no one on these boards really compromises on anything, and for the most part their seems to be a lack of any intelligent discussion on most topics. many post's here are just articles copied in full from some where else, with out any critical thinking, basically saying, look at this some one said this so it must be right.... America really needs to improve the level of political discourse in the country, as many people think there view is the only view to have.... its a pity
thats just my take on things anyway
does any one have any suggestions to improve discussion on the boards
thats just my take on things anyway
does any one have any suggestions to improve discussion on the boards
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Be kind thats the most important thing, if we are so divided here and not civil
how can we expect the world to ever be better.
Sometimes a person just wants to add something they think is of value without getting tore up for it.
An experience to share, maybe something that has effected how they live their lives that relates.
They are not trying to push views on anyone nor even debate just share something on the subject.
Also many people view the threads, visitors and what we say may help someone with something they are going through in their lives.
If a person comes to share something they may have that in mind instead of arguing or debating.
For some of us arguing makes us sick to our stomachs while others flourish on it.
Moving Train can be a nice place for all kinds of people to share their opinion
and how they feel while remaining respectful of our differences.
if that's how you read posts around here, then i suggest that the problem is actually your reading comprehension skills. if people are unable to read both posts AND articles and use it to their advantage to search for the facts then they will surely find it much easier to simply complain that the standard of debate is too "polarizing."
here's a fact: in a conflict, in anything, there are two sides to every story, but there is one thing which remains unbiased and impartial, and that is facts. the facts, for example, in the israeli-palestinian conflict show quite plainly that Israel is a colonial settler movement that took a land from a people. Any basic reading of history will show that. but people simply say "if you are not willing to compromise your beliefs then you are too stubborn and your arguments too polarizing." I will never compromise my beliefs because I hold on to beliefs that I know are provable with far too much evidence, beyond any doubt. There are some beliefs I am willing to hold to myself forever, just as my religious beliefs. If you don't believe in God, then that's your business and I'm totally cool with it. If you want to have a regular discussion, I'd be happy to participate (though in general I never found it very interesting to debate the theoretical existence of God with atheists). on the other hand, if I see an injustice occur and I know it is absolutely wrong, such as Israeli terror and colonization and ethnic cleansing, I will have to speak out against it. And further, if in my research I see that the "other side" (Palestinian resistance) exists in fact merely in opposition to such Israeli terror, then I know where my priorities should lie. You need to read Franz Fanon's 'Wretched of the Earth'. There are some principles you should not compromise on. There are some problems that necessitate struggle, and all this peace and harmony and love thy enemy shit needs to fucking die. It's this type of bullshit that allows such problems to remain prevalent in society in the first place. And meanwhile, the other side notices this and just moves to a more extremist nature knowing that you will be following every step closer to their side, since the "middle" becomes even farther away.
Wretched of the Earth is one of the best books that I have read. Required reading.
i meant Israel more than isralies, and i do understand having a difference in opinion, but sometimes that difference of opinion ends up boiling down to either BOO Israel is all bad, or israel has every right to do what they want, when the truth is probably neither (just to use the israel thing as an example)
also the Is israel palistine debate is just one of the polarizing issues that popped into my head, i havn't read enough on that particular topic to have an educated stance on it so i tend to stay out of those topics
1. A differentiation between fact & opinion.
2. Facts backed up by legitimate sources (unless they are common knowledge or undisputed).
3. People put their prejudices aside.
4. Recognition that the world is not black & white.
5. Empathy.
6. People follow the rules of debate (i.e. once point A has been refuted, bury it & move on to address point
7. MOST IMPORTANTLY: People follow the rules of logic.
8. Restraint from intentionally misrepresenting what others are saying.
9. Restraint from the use of hyperbole.
10. Respect for "expert" opinion (e.g. I think a social worker who has spent 20 years working in the foster care system is generally more likely to have a little more knowledge about the system than Joe Blow who has never really had to deal with it).
11. Proper enough grammar, punctuation, & spelling for us to know what the hell you're trying to say.
I have to defend the posting of articles though. Sometimes you just want to share information or see what others think about something. I know I learn a lot from the articles posted here.
you are reading the wrong topics. yes, many devolve into baiting and insults, but you can eventually just ignore the threads that are obviously started by someone who just wants to fight, or people who just want to insult others and make themselves feel bigger.
I have been in several debates on here with people that have been respectful, insightful, and I came away from it not always agreeing with the person, but by and large I probably learned something I didn't know before I came into it.
most of the stuff on AMT are very hot topics, so you're bound to get emotions involved, as these topics affect many people very deeply. and when you throw in the "keyboard warrior effect", with no social consequences other than 5 lashes from the mods, well, what more can you really expect?
my point: avoid the negatories. there are several people around here I won't even respond to any more. it's not worth it. but the good, intelligent people far outweigh those others.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'll add a #12. Don't go into topics that have anything remotely do with or could ever become related to religion. Because in those topics people can't even follow #1 on this list.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
A great list. I especially love #11.
Thanks! I should add that #11 was meant for native English-speakers. I have the utmost respect for people who are able to communicate at all in English when it's not their first language, regardless of their skill level. I know they are trying. I was talking about the people who know better but are just too lazy to care whether their point is communicated clearly.
I think the key part of discussing issues is to realize that we are not experts on most of the subjects and thus we shouldn't act like experts. And for those of us that are “experts” on a subject, we should still be open to fact that our views may not always be 100% right.
I would be interested in finding more on this group of Irishmen that act civil while discussing politics. This does not mend well with my stereotypical view of the Irish!
Also I admit that there have been times where I have really shown my ass and have had some knee jerk reactions. So apologize if I ever have offended anyone because those were not my intentions.
haha thats over for now at least, and probably for the foreeable future.
we had an election recently, and the one thing that struck me was the grasp of actual policy, and the problems faced, by the ordinary people, i have to say that there seems to be a better understanding in ireland than america, however thats as an outsider looking into america, i may have a different opinion after i visit
I like you list and agree with most but I have a question. What do you define as a legitimate sources.
That's a great question and I guess the answer is subject to debate. I think primary sources of factual information are more legitimate than, say, op eds. Objective sources are more legitimate than sources with a clear agenda. Peer-reviewed sources are more legitimate than those that aren't peer-reviewed. Facts believed by general consensus of professionals in the field are more legitimate than facts asserted by random fringe members of a profession. Studies that meet rigorous standards of validity are more legitimate than sloppily done studies. Et cetera. In my opinion. I'd love to hear others' opinions on this though.
Seriously, this should be at the top of _'s list.
Although, now that I think about it perhaps I'd just say that the above would be an example of where one might want to refer back to #1.
I always cringe when I see people saying "my country this" and "my country that". Way to overgeneralize. I think that mentality has a huge effect on the standard of debate here.
But being mean to others, putting people down, raises MY self esteem. Isn't that all that matters in the egocentric universe.
I know you're joking, but you're right. We can't improve on our own state of insecurity if we can't ridicule others, now can we?
I have a question. Does the Irish media drive the debates over there like it's being done here? I sure hope not. It's not a good thing to sell toothpaste while creating conflict to get ratings. Just a thought I had...do they? And do the debaters ignore the media and discuss their own ideas? Thanks.
:oops: and sorry I didn't understand the toothpaste bit.
I like your answer but i find that nowadays, everyone has an agenda. you have left leaning media vs right wing and pro this vs pro that. no matter how heard someone tries to be objective they are still writing the story and there is going to be things that are not talked about and things that will be talked again and that comes from what the writer wants to share and that is subjective.
Yeah, I see your point. But I do think there are still some sources that can be considered objective when it comes to facts. Take the debate about whether abortion causes breast cancer, for instance. The National Right to Life Committee says it does. They cite old, flawed studies that support a possible link & I've even heard them say that the American Cancer Society & American Medical Association support this assertion. But they're a biased source. Planned Parenthood says it doesn't, and some people think they're a biased source. But if we look at the studies cited by each ogranization (and we know how to assess them for validity) we can see which ones are valid & which ones aren't. And if we look for primary sources instead of taking some biased organization's word for it, we can see that the American Cancer Society & the American Medical Association both actually clearly state that there is no evidence that abortion causes breast cancer. These organizations might have an "agenda" too, but their agenda is to prevent cancer - it has nothing to do with abortion. I would say they're biased toward truth, and I think many organizations are. So I see them both as legitimate, objective sources.
Yeah, I see your point. But I do think there are still some sources that can be considered objective when it comes to facts. Take the debate about whether abortion causes breast cancer, for instance. The National Right to Life Committee says it does. They cite old, flawed studies that support a possible link & I've even heard them say that the American Cancer Society & American Medical Association support this assertion. But they're a biased source. Planned Parenthood says it doesn't, and some people think they're a biased source. But if we look at the studies cited by each ogranization (and we know how to assess them for validity) we can see which ones are valid & which ones aren't. And if we look for primary sources instead of taking some biased organization's word for it, we can see that the American Cancer Society & the American Medical Association both actually clearly state that there is no evidence that abortion causes breast cancer. These organizations might have an "agenda" too, but their agenda is to prevent cancer - it has nothing to do with abortion. I would say they're biased toward truth, and I think many organizations are. So I see them both as legitimate, objective sources.[/quote]
I understand what you are saying but that i smore based on testing and research but when it comes to news stories that is different.
News stories like about what's happening with the nuclear plant in Japan, or whether $55 billion was snuck into the healthcare plan... that kind of thing?
I see what you are saying and in someways your right. the issues is that nowadays, many stories reported on have some level of stats but also some level of opinion. like what Yosi before said in this tread, 'facts can be construed to show a belief of something"