Standard of debate on here

UpSideDown

I would say the overtone of American ignorance is quite abundant on here. It seems to throw a lot of topics askew from the get go.

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.

whygohome

Jeanwah wrote:

I would just like to see people stop being intentionally mean to others, and quit the childish name calling, which leads to being banned. None of that is necessary!!!

Seriously, this should be at the top of _'s list.

But being mean to others, putting people down, raises MY self esteem. Isn't that all that matters in the egocentric universe.

Jeanwah

whygohome wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I would just like to see people stop being intentionally mean to others, and quit the childish name calling, which leads to being banned. None of that is necessary!!!

Seriously, this should be at the top of _'s list.

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?

Kat

satansbed wrote:

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

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.

nuffingman

Kat wrote:

satansbed wrote:

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

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.

I think there's probably a fair bit of that but not living in Ireland i can't say. It certainly happens here. The only debate I've seen has shown a lot of extremely pissed of Irish people condemning their government for it's narrow-minded economic strategy that has forced it to grovel with the begging bowl for billions.

:oops: and sorry I didn't understand the toothpaste bit.

fife

_ wrote:

fife wrote:

_ wrote:

It'll never happen, but I'd love to see:
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.

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.

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.

_

fife wrote:

_ wrote:

fife wrote:

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.

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.

fife

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.[/quote]

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.

_

fife wrote:

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?

fife

_ wrote:

fife wrote:

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"

_

fife wrote:

_ wrote:

fife wrote:

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"

Yes, I see your point & I agree - it's a problem. :(