Civility in Debating

Go ahead and vote for McCain. Then you can drink a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer while listening to Lynyrd Skynnyrd, and watching NASCAR!

McCain = NAZI! Palin = Hitler! Bush destroyed everything! Republicans suck! Anyone not voting for Obama is an ignorant, racist, pig-fucking, beer-swilling, turkey pot pie-eating, barefoot, trailer park-living, tobacco chewing, bible thumping, toothless, barbeque eating, meth snorting, welfare check getting, Wal Mart shopping, country music listening, never bathing, dukes of hazzard watching, jerry springer, HICK!

I’M SO ANGRY ALL THE TIME! VOTE FOR OBAMA!

Oh, at my school today I saw “kill McCain 08” written on the ground in chalk near the common area.

the Obamamaniacs are really getting nasty here on campus. I see all kinds of really childish crap written on the walls around here.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
pat wrote:
If they can’t take the heat, they can get the fuck out.

Oh, we can take the heat. I’m just tired of THIS type of mentality here

[/quote]

You are making shit up. Honestly you haven’t been around long enough to know what people really think. Very few are actually republicans. Just because one cannot side with the demoralized obtuseness and perpetual stupidity of the democratic party does not mean we are automatically republicans. I disagree with virtually all the tenants of the democratic party, from baby killing in and out of the womb, to wealth redistribution and believing the government is the solution to all our problems. I disagree with about half of the republican tenants, especially drug prohibition.

To prevent an numb-nut like Obama from entering the presidency we have to vote republican because they have the best chance to win…But it seems there are to many mindless sheep who are bullshitted by “hope and change” even though that shit means nothing. What are we changing and to what are we changing ‘it’ to? What is it we are hoping for? He never explains that and most mindnumb sheeple just nod and repeat “hope and change”. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was a change…That work out well.

[quote]ryanjm wrote:
I agree with OP. Problem is, if you get rid of the people who just rant here regularly about “liberals” and “conservatives” and spew hate at anyone who opposes their beliefs, you get rid of 70%+ of the posts on this board.

The most regular posters seem to be the ones that have little constructive to say, but shout the loudest and longest. Don’t think it’ll change unless T-Nation suddenly has an interest in making sure the politics forum actually has an intelligent discussion rather than a bunch of chest-thumping. Doubt that’s anytime soon.[/quote]

The people who are mentally tough enough to take the bullshit that flies around on both sides of every issue in this forum usually stick around.

The one’s who are too sensitive should just leave.

I can’t understand how it is so difficult for some folks to understand this. Because once you do, you will see that this forum is pretty good at presenting both sides.

Since when is an internet political forum supposed to be civil?

The only time it gets really ugly is election time. Then the arguments just get crazy.

That and religion / evolution threads are just as bad.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, crap, I’ve just been discussing FDR as he ties to fascism and socialism.

[/quote]

fascism and socialism are like the oil and water of the political spectrum …

[quote]polo77j wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, crap, I’ve just been discussing FDR as he ties to fascism and socialism.

fascism and socialism are like the oil and water of the political spectrum …[/quote]

So what if you are against Fascism and Socialism? Where is the nuetral ground? Oh yea and everyone go stick thier Dick/Tits (whatever you have or both if you have both) in a light socket.

V

[quote]polo77j wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, crap, I’ve just been discussing FDR as he ties to fascism and socialism.

fascism and socialism are like the oil and water of the political spectrum …[/quote]

Socialism is a mirage; fascism is the system leaders/oligarchs inevitably adopt to try to reach this mirage. See? If not, let me know and I’ll go into more detail.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ryanjm wrote:
I agree with OP. Problem is, if you get rid of the people who just rant here regularly about “liberals” and “conservatives” and spew hate at anyone who opposes their beliefs, you get rid of 70%+ of the posts on this board.

The most regular posters seem to be the ones that have little constructive to say, but shout the loudest and longest. Don’t think it’ll change unless T-Nation suddenly has an interest in making sure the politics forum actually has an intelligent discussion rather than a bunch of chest-thumping. Doubt that’s anytime soon.

The people who are mentally tough enough to take the bullshit that flies around on both sides of every issue in this forum usually stick around.

The one’s who are too sensitive should just leave.

I can’t understand how it is so difficult for some folks to understand this. Because once you do, you will see that this forum is pretty good at presenting both sides.

Since when is an internet political forum supposed to be civil? [/quote]

It’s not an issue of being mentally tough. It’s having to wade through dozens of posts of name-calling before finding any real argument or substance that’s worth reading or responding to.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ryanjm wrote:
I agree with OP. Problem is, if you get rid of the people who just rant here regularly about “liberals” and “conservatives” and spew hate at anyone who opposes their beliefs, you get rid of 70%+ of the posts on this board.

The most regular posters seem to be the ones that have little constructive to say, but shout the loudest and longest. Don’t think it’ll change unless T-Nation suddenly has an interest in making sure the politics forum actually has an intelligent discussion rather than a bunch of chest-thumping. Doubt that’s anytime soon.

The people who are mentally tough enough to take the bullshit that flies around on both sides of every issue in this forum usually stick around.

The one’s who are too sensitive should just leave.

I can’t understand how it is so difficult for some folks to understand this. Because once you do, you will see that this forum is pretty good at presenting both sides.

Since when is an internet political forum supposed to be civil?

It’s not an issue of being mentally tough. It’s having to wade through dozens of posts of name-calling before finding any real argument or substance that’s worth reading or responding to.[/quote]

Yes.

^^Well said.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ryanjm wrote:
I agree with OP. Problem is, if you get rid of the people who just rant here regularly about “liberals” and “conservatives” and spew hate at anyone who opposes their beliefs, you get rid of 70%+ of the posts on this board.

The most regular posters seem to be the ones that have little constructive to say, but shout the loudest and longest. Don’t think it’ll change unless T-Nation suddenly has an interest in making sure the politics forum actually has an intelligent discussion rather than a bunch of chest-thumping. Doubt that’s anytime soon.

The people who are mentally tough enough to take the bullshit that flies around on both sides of every issue in this forum usually stick around.

The one’s who are too sensitive should just leave.

I can’t understand how it is so difficult for some folks to understand this. Because once you do, you will see that this forum is pretty good at presenting both sides.

Since when is an internet political forum supposed to be civil?

It’s not an issue of being mentally tough. It’s having to wade through dozens of posts of name-calling before finding any real argument or substance that’s worth reading or responding to.[/quote]

You seem to do just fine in here.

What I don’t get is all the whining about name calling. Everyone devolves to it.

About the only people who don’t are Makkum and Boston Barrister. Maybe Nephorm as well, but he could cuss everyone one of us out and we would never know it - and we would probably thank him when he’s finished.

But aside from those few, there is no one who posts in the PWI forum innocent.

Why the bitching and whining?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We’ve all been guilty of being uncivil on the PWI forum, but lately it seems as if things have gotten particularly bad. There’s no point in naming names - we, collectively, have a problem.

Here are some “debate” tactics that prove nothing and contribute to bad feeling:

ad hominem: yelling, insults, etc. The key culprit lately.
reductio ad Hitlerum: comparing someone to Hitler for espousing a particular view.
argument by outrage: sort of self explanatory, but basically involves attempting to show how “wrong” an idea is because of how morally repugnant it is, which usually involves tying the idea into something Hitler believed. See above.
tu quoque: Generally, another form of ad hominem. There are valid and invalid forms of it. Read this:

The key to debating is to a) remain calm, b) have an idea, and c) support it with some sort of philosophical or evidentiary argumentation.

That is all.

Edit: Many of us here simply like to be offended and outraged. May I gently suggest that if this is the case, we please do it somewhere else?
[/quote]

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Just last week you told me in a thread that maybe I should kill myself. And now you want to make a post about being civil. Bwaaahahahahaha.

Yeah, that’s rich.

I’d agree with Rainjack - I wouldn*t see this as too much of a problem. Certainly no need for a ‘cleanse’ or a PWI-Cell as it’s been suggested some time back. People feel strongly about issues, and it’s not wrong to display that as well.

From my perspective, it’s often even easier to argue with an opponent who hurls insults at you - as it makes them so much easier to make your own point much more believable.

Sometimes people overstep their boundaries when they comment on their opponents’ personal lives. E.g. I always cringed when people gave forlife moral and relationship advice in various threads - but he’s a big boy and can handle it. We’re all adults here (well, mostly), and can handle some adversity.

I’d like to see more topical diversity - and occasionally mod control by for example grouping all the Obama, anti-muslim, gay and econonmy threads into one each (perhaps even with a sticky), but that’s about my only problem.

To the OP - I on the other hand agree with what you say; people should be more polite. I always thought the best way to achieve that is leading by example.

Makkun

[quote]polo77j wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, crap, I’ve just been discussing FDR as he ties to fascism and socialism.

fascism and socialism are like the oil and water of the political spectrum …[/quote]

Not at all.

It’s just a choice between Big Brother or Big Mother.

As long as the substance stays high, I don’t mind a little extra “edge” to the posts - largely because it is impossible to have a spirited debate without that “edge”. I’d rather err on the side of having that “edge” in order to have a better debate than to wind up sterilizing the debate too much. I’m fine with a gentlemanly debate on the merits, but I am realistic enough to know that the issues we discuss bring out the “animal spirits”, and that isn’t always a bad thing.

That said, again, the key is substance, which, to be frank, has also suffered here for some time. If all you have is vitriol for your opponent and you have nothing of substance to add, then stop wasting time.

And one last point on ad hominems - that label gets thrown around far too much and in error. If you attack a person’s argument substantively, then remark on them in an unflattering way, you may have insulted them, but you haven’t indulged in a true ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally in lieu of attacking their argument, not in addition to. If someone tells you you are wrong because you are a moron, then that is an ad hominem. If someone tells you you are wrong, explains why in three paragraphs, and then calls you a moron for advancing what they believe to be a dumb argument, that is a gratuitous insult.

Neither is good for debate if you are a purist, but anonymous internet forums aren’t very “pure”.

I agree that this forum could use a lot more civility. I called for it several weeks ago.

That said, I can only assume that this is some sort of joke or troll thread because PR started it. He’s generally been uncivil bordering upon bigoted on several occasions. And his various threads regarding Obama’s “racialism” are annoying to say the least.

I agree that some moderation combining some of the similar threads should be enacted. How many “obama is secretly a muslim” threads do we really need? Same goes for the various other conspiracy threads.

The vitriol on this forum is chasing off a lot of people that I would prefer be on this forum. This is especially true for “new” posters. A new poster will come on and immediately be attacked personally rather than attacking their arguments. I think this should stop and I think we should “self moderate” to tell the offenders to stfu.

I also agree that the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely low, even for a message board. A lot less attacks and a lot more arguing I think is appropriate.

I hope that people read this thread and begin to be a bit more civil, at least to the new voices here…but I doubt it will happen.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I agree that this forum could use a lot more civility. I called for it several weeks ago.

That said, I can only assume that this is some sort of joke or troll thread because PR started it. He’s generally been uncivil bordering upon bigoted on several occasions. And his various threads regarding Obama’s “racialism” are annoying to say the least.

I agree that some moderation combining some of the similar threads should be enacted. How many “obama is secretly a muslim” threads do we really need? Same goes for the various other conspiracy threads.

The vitriol on this forum is chasing off a lot of people that I would prefer be on this forum. This is especially true for “new” posters. A new poster will come on and immediately be attacked personally rather than attacking their arguments. I think this should stop and I think we should “self moderate” to tell the offenders to stfu.

I also agree that the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely low, even for a message board. A lot less attacks and a lot more arguing I think is appropriate.

I hope that people read this thread and begin to be a bit more civil, at least to the new voices here…but I doubt it will happen.

[/quote]

Of you don’t like the forum, take your pussy-assed whining to another board.

Really - no one gives a flying fuck what you called for weeks ago. It only took you a few days to join in the fray.

You are not innocent. Just a fucking whiner.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As long as the substance stays high, I don’t mind a little extra “edge” to the posts - largely because it is impossible to have a spirited debate without that “edge”. I’d rather err on the side of having that “edge” in order to have a better debate than to wind up sterilizing the debate too much. I’m fine with a gentlemanly debate on the merits, but I am realistic enough to know that the issues we discuss bring out the “animal spirits”, and that isn’t always a bad thing.

That said, again, the key is substance, which, to be frank, has also suffered here for some time. If all you have is vitriol for your opponent and you have nothing of substance to add, then stop wasting time.

And one last point on ad hominems - that label gets thrown around far too much and in error. If you attack a person’s argument substantively, then remark on them in an unflattering way, you may have insulted them, but you haven’t indulged in a true ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally in lieu of attacking their argument, not in addition to. If someone tells you you are wrong because you are a moron, then that is an ad hominem. If someone tells you you are wrong, explains why in three paragraphs, and then calls you a moron for advancing what they believe to be a dumb argument, that is a gratuitous insult.

Neither is good for debate if you are a purist, but anonymous internet forums aren’t very “pure”.[/quote]

Good post. The problem lately is that there has been no substance.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We’ve all been guilty of being uncivil on the PWI forum, but lately it seems as if things have gotten particularly bad. There’s no point in naming names - we, collectively, have a problem.

Here are some “debate” tactics that prove nothing and contribute to bad feeling:

ad hominem: yelling, insults, etc. The key culprit lately.
reductio ad Hitlerum: comparing someone to Hitler for espousing a particular view.
argument by outrage: sort of self explanatory, but basically involves attempting to show how “wrong” an idea is because of how morally repugnant it is, which usually involves tying the idea into something Hitler believed. See above.
tu quoque: Generally, another form of ad hominem. There are valid and invalid forms of it. Read this:

The key to debating is to a) remain calm, b) have an idea, and c) support it with some sort of philosophical or evidentiary argumentation.

That is all.

Edit: Many of us here simply like to be offended and outraged. May I gently suggest that if this is the case, we please do it somewhere else?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Just last week you told me in a thread that maybe I should kill myself. And now you want to make a post about being civil. Bwaaahahahahaha.

Yeah, that’s rich.[/quote]

My bad. I should have taken this post more seriously:

[quote]This country has to have some of the most heartless and shallow people in the world.

The government can spend 600 billion a year on military, 50 billion a year on the war on drugs, 35 billion a year on FOREIGN AID… Read that again you nitwits, FOREIGN AID…but as soon as money is spent for domestic programs, for AMERICANS, for your NEIGHBORS, suddenly it’s the most horrific and unjust use of tax payer’s money ever.

For a country that overwhelmingly considers itself ‘christian’, I rarely see people share the same compassion or giving nature for people their supposed savior did and encouraged.

Assholes.

Now start ranting and raving about how you don’t want your money to go to ‘deadbeats’ and ‘lazy bums’ while the government ships off billions of tax payer’s dollars to foreign nations that you could give a fuck less about.[/quote]

You sounded so miserable I was just suggesting a way out for you. heheh.