PF Debates: Will You Participate?

No, just banned from the thread in order to ensure fairness for those who accept a challenge (which is an option for every member here).

This idea wouldn't have made it to the forum feedback section without the approval of the mod panel. You're also free to explain how this alleged conspiracy by certain mods could ever work if everyone is free to participate. Are you claiming we have the foresight capability to know that certain posters would click the "No, I won't participate" option? If so... I appreciate the compliment.

 

No problem.

 

Since when do the mods decide the terms of service. It was my understanding that their job was to enforce the terms of service we all agreed to when joining this site, not to arbitrarily change them.

If certain mods, or even if all the mods wish to not abide by the site's terms of service they should start their own site. They were never given the authority to change this site's terms of service.

If I or anyone else wishes to post in any thread we are allowed to do so under the terms of service. Until the owner him/her or their self changes the terms of service, those are the rules of the site. Moderators do not have the authority to change them.

 

Take a look at who the last editor to the Terms of Service was. To save you the trouble, it was a moderator... adding a rule. We don't make any changes or additions without the approval of the panel, which 1 on 1 debates have.

 

The fact that you overstep your bounds does not make it right.

 

I like this idea, I hope it happens. But a couple questions come to mind:

1) How do we fairly judge opposing positions to issues which basically amount to opinions and ideals? I'm talking about issues that cannot be settled by presenting facts and figures. It seems like it'll be difficult for a judge to avoid being biased.

2) How much moderation will there be during the debate? For example, if you feel like your opponent isn't providing enough references to support their position, or if you believe their sources are questionable?... If they start resorting to personal attacks, strawmen... etc?

 

Not at all as many Gay folk do not see things similar, some believe in marriage some do not, some believe in adoption some do not. Some do think they are different and are looking for a cure. Most definitely the same thing with religion, some have lost their faith and argue for reason...it's an opposite view. We would not want it closed all the time just on request.

 

That is your opinion and it is noted.

 

You've just explained the purpose of a group... a section of similar persons who may discuss issues that revolve around their defining purpose (or in this case: group title). Proponents and Opponents of a wide range of topics are not similar persons, nor can they be grouped as easily as homosexuals. You idea seeks to exclude individuals not of the homosexual preference... whereas the debate idea allows for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to exchange their positions in a 1 on 1 setting. The two aren't similar, as I said attempts to relate would fail.

 

I am fast coming to conclusion.

Those that are screaming against this seem to be against the premise of a one on one debate.

Why? Well, in my wise opinion, it can only be out of fear.

They fear what woudl happen to them if they dared enter it. Alone. Forced to support their arguments. No raging mob of like minded people to help them, that they can pm to come to their aid. Fear of being caught out, not able to hide their lack of skills amongst the herd.

I think they also fear those with whom they disagree displaying that they can are capable of actually supporting their argument. Fear that those different than themselves in political philosophy can foment arguments that would beat their own.

 

More like fear of being bored to death reading some blowhard blathering on and on and on and on, uninterrupted.

I think they should go ahead and implement it... and quit talking it to death. It's obvious the mods don't care what most of us think -- let's get it started so we can all take a nap.

 

Do you honestly think I would be afraid to debate you?

I can't speak for everyone who is opposed to the debate idea, but my opposition is philosophical and not based on fear. I doubt many of those opposed to the idea of setting aside certain threads for certain, select posters and forbidding all others from participating in them are afraid of the vaunted debate skills of our liberal brothers and sisters. If the liberals are such great debaters why have they been hiding their debate skills up till now? From where I stand, they haven't won many debates in which liberals are on one side of an issue and conservatives on the other.

 

You are free to not read anything you like. No one would ever make you read and expose yourself to contradictory opinions that perhaps would challenge your beliefs or throw some facts into the mix. In my opinion, there are plenty of folks around that refuse to read anything that they fear would not support their flimsy beliefs.

 

It very well could, and we discussed this briefly in the input thread that's also in the feedback section:

As far as an actual "winner/loser" format, we'll be asking that judges observe not only the points & supporting content participants bring to the debate... but also the ability to serve as a strong representative to their given position, remain consistent throughout, and possibly express a degree of persuasion. Debate is a game of chess, and judges can award a participant if they notice strategy, wit, and a solid framework that seems to flow (as if he/she knows the opponent's responses before they're even posted) one example being the ability to corner an opponent into a singular point before they've made it (rendering a strong planned defense useless if already debunked) or strategic questioning that creates flip-flops (throwing him/her off the aforementioned consistency).

I know these topics are subjective, and it's why we're hoping that people still have the ability to dismiss their personal beliefs for a moments time in order to focus on what I've mentioned above.

I've seen point systems used before, and we wouldn't be closed to such a method.​

Personal insults (and other infractions) are still prohibited here, so we'll have to moderate. Other than that, removing clutter from non-participants will be the only moderation handled. All else, like strawmen, lack of references and bad sources are for the judges to point out during the judging process.

 

So far, we have 670 posts on the subject of 'intelligent debates' -- and still no decision on how it'll work.

It's like this forum has been taken over by Barack Obama!!

 

That all sounds good, thanks.

 

Since you wish to get personal, yes, I certainly think so.

There seems to be an element in this forum that is so interdependent upon each other for support that they can not operate individually. Thye inhabit threads as a group, and their only defense is their offense of presence as a whole.

There is a common denominator to all of those vociferously against this idea that does not affect them if they opt to not participate, of which you are a member.

 

So if you do not want to participate, what do you care what others do?

 

I have read comment after comment by liberal posters stating that the conservatives are afraid to debate them. It is almost as if certain liberals have no concept of the idea of people taking a stand based on what they view as right and wrong. Are they so shallow that they cannot conceive of people taking principled stands or are they so arrogant they honestly believe they are so much smarter than everyone else that they have scared people away?

 

Maybe we should start a, "Shallow Hal" thread where liberals can pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are.

 

Get used to it. For those who wish to participate, we will first take topic ideas and pick the most popular topics/focus questions to start with as a beta to test what works and what doesn't. I'm thinking 2-3 more weeks with more input from those actually interested before we begin, which could be shortened without the redundancy expressed from those who aren't.

 

And how dumb everybody else is.

Like I said early on, might as well do a beauty contest. Makes about as much sense as a 'debate competition'.

You know how libs are... always trying to prove they're superior.

 

So now you're getting testy, EPV. You start a thread about the debate and then begin complaining about the comments of those who are against the idea. If you don't want to read comments by those against your point of view, perhaps you shouldn't start theads asking for input. The comments of those against the idea are no more redundant than those expressed by those in favor of the idea and they have been expressed with far less insulting language than those posts by those in favor.

 

A few mavericks have already gone off on their own and opened threads in the debate section. Any chance the 'official' debates will be any better than those?

 

Because I haven't been in a while, help me... what exactly happens in the Quorum?

Don't get me wrong... you're free to complain. However, understanding your redundacy (when your complaints have been addressed) is another thing. Your thoughts on this are well understood... believe me, but they're not without a flawed premise either. You claimed mods can't do something, and that was proven to be false. Others have claimed that were trying to exclude certain views... when it's impossible to do so under a volunteer system. There have also been claims that this will work in a group, with adequate explanation for why it will not. Now there's a new claim that it'll be boring... as if you'll be forced into the smallest section of the forum. Plenty of flaws present, but by all means... continue.