Debating the debates?

[Lt Cmdr Matt]

How do you guys think that the formal debate thing worked that I asked you all to try out? My opinion showed that it worked very successfully, although others opinions might differ?

The boards seem more pleasant without the personal insults from my perspective. Do you guys agree or disagree?

[qerlin]

I agree, you bleep bleepity bleep bleep!

[Evan van Eyk]

Seeing that I am called a troll and an ass, I think it did not work.

[C5]

Errr... juging from the thread about Collin Powell's speech, I'd say its success was, well, debatable

[Capt.Hunter]

Ah, but we didn't put the "Debate" phrase in the thread title on that one did we? May as well have painted a bullseye on it...

[Calcoran]

Oh ... so "Debate:" in the topic means "Please refrain from throwing mud here." ... and "Political:" means "Mudfest." ... right?

[Kaiddin]

No it failed.

I made a statement that was simply to show my frustration at what a few members of these boards would take to start a mud-slinging match and got pulled into one my self. Yes I have opinions on what is going on in the world. Yes I understand that other have opinions. Nowhere have I said that someone shouldn't be allowed to have a differing opinion. But don't I have the right to believe what I want about someone or someone's opinion? If I'm wrong, I'm the idiot.

Where I failed yesterday is in a matter of etiquette. This is Don Mappin's house. I should have respected his hospitality. Just because, in my opinion, someone else wasn't it wasn't up to me to point it out. For that I apologize to Don.

I also showed disrespect to Lt Cmdr Matt, moderator of these boards. It was not my intent but I allowed myself to be bated. This requires an apology and I hope Matt will accept it.

Much has been made about my use of the term troll and that I said I believed someone an ass . Other than the disrespect my using these term's in Don's house, the only things I find wrong was that they were obvious insults. I guess I could have been a little subtler and said things like:

Read you tomorrow for a new round of mindless flaming if this thread hasn't been locked since or has evolved to something more interesting and intelligent (wich I doubt) .

But you and many others simply ignore facts and say Amen to anything the government says and decides. Not the slightest sign of critical thinking appears in many posts made at this boards.

But I did not want to imply that someone lacked intelligence. Nor did I want to imply that I was more intelligent than someone else on these boards. I may be wrong but I don't believe I am so conceited as to assume greater or lesser intelligence as the above quotes do.

As I have said I just thought that this debate was futile. I attempted not to imply any side, just the fiction of a debate itself. Am I the only one who has noticed that these so called debates seem to collapse into a few people fighting over their sides of the debate? Senseless mud-slinging, I believe it was called? Am I the only one who has heard people suggest they were leaving because of what this so called debate is doing to the group?

If Don or Matt wish to reprimand me; I will understand and attempt to correct my behaviour. I will also attempt to stay out of the senseless mud-slinging of the so called political debate. I can't promise anything other than I'll try.

[Perrryyy]

"Formal debates" on these boards fail (IMO) and always will because they have a bullseye on them that says "this is a formal debate, topic chosen by the moderator". (The formal debate thread I saw was started by a moderator of this board).

Sorry but that's akin to babysitting. I think we should go back to debating what we want, when we want without "babysitting" by the mods.

[Calcoran]

Kaiddin: You know, I think you shouldn't take Evan's words as specifically intended for you. I was under the impression from the context that Evan meant it in general. ICBW of course. Another thing you must remember is that many on the boards are not native English speakers. Some of us succeed in fooling said native English speakers and in masking our handicap () but sometimes, especially in the heat of a debate, we happen to make mistakes. Sometimes we type words we thought were benign ... when those words can easily be seen as offensive to native speakers. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it happens.
Anyhow, I'm just speaking in general, maybe Evan completely disagrees with what I just wrote .

[Evan van Eyk]

No, I do not disagree. I apologize for offending you, Kaiddin. Those words were neither intended for you nor have I wanted to express that I think me more intelligent or others less. If you feeled that way, I apologize.

But if that shows anything then maybe how difficult international cooperation and agreements are, yet I do not think we should cease to try.

But I see that I overdid it with always pointing the finger at certain people or governments - even if I tried otherwise. I cease to do so.

[Capt.Hunter]

Besides, the debate is working. If nothing else, we learn more about the people we're talking to by what they believe. And the harsh realism that people such as First of Two, Qerlin and others inject into their arguments has moderated my original extremely idealistic opinion into a "we'll do it but only as a last resort" view. While I will mourn for any civilian casualties in a war on Iraq, as long as it is clear that the Allied forces took the best precautions to minimize them I will not argue.

Meanwhile, people like Dan Stack continue to set us all an example with their debating style.

I think - I hope - it is clear from my posts that I am not anti-American. I have problems with the hypocrisy of the US government, but then I have problems with hypocrisy in my own government. The American people, however, were among the friendliest I've ever met (even if they did constantly mistake me for an Australian... ).

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Besides, the debate is working. If nothing else, we learn more about the people we're talking to by what they believe. And the harsh realism that people such as First of Two, Qerlin and others inject into their arguments has moderated my original extremely idealistic opinion into a "we'll do it but only as a last resort" view. While I will mourn for any civilian casualties in a war on Iraq, as long as it is clear that the Allied forces took the best precautions to minimize them I will not argue.

Meanwhile, people like Dan Stack continue to set us all an example with their debating style.

I think - I hope - it is clear from my posts that I am not anti-American. I have problems with the hypocrisy of the US government, but then I have problems with hypocrisy in my own government. The American people, however, were among the friendliest I've ever met (even if they did constantly mistake me for an Australian... ).

I think that that is a very good summary of my thoughts as well. Could not have stated it a better way, Captain

[Dan Gurden]

Personally, my biggest problem are the debates that specify in the title who shouldn't be there. Whether it be Braga bashers out or Hawks only... It simply shows an inability to deal with an opposing viewpoint...

At this point its a hard choice between the rapidly degrading arguements pretending to be debates that slowly get more personal or a strict immediate shut-down by us Mods bordering on Censorship.

I dont like either choice though, so I will keep with the self-censorship by the original authors, and by those that choose to ignore threads to avoid conflict. Self Cesorship doesn't say the point is right or wrong. It just says that those with an alternate viewpoint are mature enough to deal with an alternate view without taking it personally... Rather than the current crop of debates which would fit better in the playground.

Its sad, but I seem to be spending less and less time here...