Debater Problems on Debate Pit

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

Every now and then I find a select few topics in Debate Pit that piqued my curiosity and willing to chime in to discuss that which would be relevant to the topic at hand. I discuss it by explaining that which hasn't been brought up in the discussion. So far my experiences with Debate Pit has been pretty modest. However, I have come across such Debaters whom I believe don't do a good job debating with me at hand and what I personally believe violates the rules and etiquette that are mandatory when being a Debater in Debate Pit.

One of the most basic rules and etiquettes I believe some of my Debaters violate are the following according to the Debate Symposium Rules & Handbook,

Quote

Debate Pit Best Practices

• Do not engage to convince the user - This is often overlooked, but in a public forum you have an audience that is reading your posts and viewpoints. Instead of engaging the individual in some one on one contest of logos v logos, consider presenting your views as if you were trying to convince that ideal reader. After all, the individual you are quoting may be firmly entrenched in their beliefs.
• Try and base your arguments off of logic and not just emotion - Yes appealing to the authority of oneself and to emotion may dissuade or convince a less informed user, but should you try this against someone who is prepared and knowledgeable, this is a recipe for disaster for your point.
• Treat other debaters with comradery and not hostility - Debate is not a sport of combat or teams, it’s a sport of understanding and finding common ground. One should be able to set aside their feelings and differences as much as possible so as not to do any disservice to either their fellow members or themselves.

 

Now the reason why I highlighted out these specific three points is because some of the Debaters who wish to Debate with me come across as such whenever they're debating with me. I could be asking a simple question that would be relevant within Debate Pit and apparently these Debaters who I have a problem with wish to take offense with everything I've said to support the relevancy of my question that would be meaningful. Such Debaters I have a problem with intend to cherry pick and misconstrue my posts to fit under their narrative.

I will provide examples and proofs of how I debate with my opposers and how my opposers debate with me through a basic Logical Ground where Debater A is Myself while Debater B is My Opposer. This is Quote 1,

Quote

Debater A brings an argumentative question and supports his question with relevant key points all throughout his post to supplement his argumentative question.

Debater B cherry picks the argumentative question along with certain key points (AKA Quote Mine) throughout Debater A's post to go off on an emotional tangent, take offense, and shoot down Debater A's post as irrelevant to the discussion without going in the details explicitly to explain why Debater A's is irrelevant.

Therefore, Debater A's argument in a nutshell is irrelevant.

I witness some Debaters from my experience that "quote mine" to the extreme in order to misconstrue my post entirely (AKA Straw Manning) which is honestly unacceptable not just for myself to understand their points, but for themselves, and for the Debate Pit entirely.

The way how I usually Debate as Debater A with my Debaters as Debater B is the following under Quote 2 below,

Quote

Debater B brings an argumentative question and supports his question with relevant key points all throughout his post to supplement his argumentative question.

Debater A quotes the entire post of Debater B's while highlighting out certain statements within that quote in either bold or underline to make that particular statement seem more significant, does his best to understand where Debater B is coming from in relation to the highlighted statements on top of the rest of his quotes in order to not fully undermine Debater B's post. The rest of the points that are not highlighted will be treated according to Debater A as a fair point and leave it at that. However, if it doesn't and comes across irrelevant, Debater A will be willing to explain how Debater B's un-highlighted points throughout his post is irrelevant.

Therefore, Debater A acknowledges Debater B's points while not undermining his points entirely.

I want to answer a poignant question. Which Debate as I put them all in quotes seems acceptable at face value to be a more meaningful and thought-provoking discussion? Quote 1 or Quote 2?

I understand the way how I quote my Debaters at face value might not seem all that different since if I'm willing to bold/underline certain statements while at the same time quoting the whole post of my opposer's post then it is no different from my opposer quote mining specific points within my post.

However, there's a huge distinction that separates between me and my opposer with the way how I quote and the way how my opposer quotes.

At least with my method, I'm willing to explain either their points are fair. If not, then I explain how their un-highlighted points are irrelevant explicitly and conclude that the un-highlighted points does not add up to the discussion in relation to their highlighted statements that I deem worthy. Which is why I quote the whole post entirely in order to understand the big picture (highlighted statements) and the little details (un-highlighted statements) on top of that throughout their post in order to come to a more reasonable conclusion of their post.

Whereas my Opposer's method "quote-mining" comes across as if they don't care what I've said throughout my post entirely and they're simply misconstruing my post entirely (AKA Straw Manning) to fit under their narrative in order to highlight out how irrelevant my post is while ignoring the little details to explain their points in an explicit manner for why my post is irrelevant to begin with.

What they're doing is not Debating anymore IMHO, but simply finding out flaws within that person's argument, and only focus on the flaws of that person's argument to undermine the whole point of his post entirely which is unacceptable. This is a shallow, narrow-minded and biased perspective of how anyone in their right mind should ever debate with another person.

 

I will leave behind these forms of Logical Fallacies that my opposers have committed against me so they can look back at most of their posts and think twice about making their future posts in the future. It's not only helpful for them, but for myself and for others as well,

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/51/Argument-from-Fallacy

 

I know that I'm not a perfect individual as well, but I do my best to understand what I don't understand. I may have committed a violation of at least one rule within the Debate Pit Rules & Handbook which is obsessively making the same points over and over again. However, in my defense I don't understand my opposers's points and I re-iterate my points again to highlight out why my opposers are ignoring them to help me understand. My violation is nothing compared to the numerable violations that my opposers have committed against me.

[MangoFoalix 24,956]

Moving to Feedback section.

[Jeric 46,851]

I am assuming that this is not due to a specific message or moderation action. Otherwise I would have just locked this and invited an honest private conversation between the Administration and you over how the site is moderated. In the we allowed these sorts of discussions to go on and on and on under the guise and pretense it was for community improvement, which it rarely ever was. So if this is the case let me know now so we can take this up in a DM. 

I asked that this be moved to Feedback. I’ll allow the community to opine. My initial (but not final) thoughts on DS are this: 

In the end most of what I tossed into the Debate section are best practices. Using a logical fallacy or incorrect information isn’t going to be challenged by staff directly. I do want to give the younger or less experienced users who may not be aware of the finer points of Philosophy a chance to give their thoughts. The rules currently all boil down to one general thing — don’t be an insulting asshat. That will never change. 

I did entertain the idea of a more structured and formal format for debate, however it quickly became very apparent that few people know how formal debates are conducted. Also, because of the general level and flavor of pathos and humor found in that section, finding staffers willing to manage such a concept becomes a time sink none of us are prepared to undertake. The reputation of that section precedes it. Sometimes it is impossible to tell if someone there is being genuinely naive, a troll, or so caught up in their own internal vacuum of ideas that they can here anything beyond the white noise of their chosen talking points. Such is the internet. 

And then there is my personal taste. There are users in there I would love to engage with on a discussion. All of them have widely diverse views. @Twiggy and @Goat-kun are definitely not individuals who share my personal worldview but I actually enjoy reading what they have to say, and even engaging them from time to time. I certainly don’t want to have a formal debate with them. For one, I have a feeling that they wouldn’t like that sort of overly structured system. Two, they would probably kick my ass in a genuine debate.  I’m like most and don’t like losing.

 

So, if anyone has any other thoughts on the section, shoot away. 

[Frostgage 7,975]

Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting an institution to be the best it can possibly be. However, it's important to remember that this is just the internet, and a public forum at that. No user should be obligated to see a debate all the way through to the end, display perfect logic in all of their posts, or anything of that sort - I believe this is why that excerpt is called "best practices" and not straight-up rules. The only requirement is the general "don't be a dick" thing Jeric mentioned; as long as people are posting in order to debate the given topic and not to simply antagonize others, that's the most you can ask for. imo this is just the reality of the internet and something you'll have to live with, regardless of whom you feel is in the right in a given situation.

[Twiggy 2,966]

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

So, if anyone has any other thoughts on the section, shoot away. 

It’s great the way it is imo. Only thing I could suggest would be a dedicated mod for the DS. Not to enforce structured debate, a monumental undertaking as you stated, but to keep a closer eye on the threads so that they don’t devolve the way that they tend to do. Most staff have other things to do besides babysitting the DS, so occasionally some thing slip under the radar until the thread becomes an absolute mess. One dedicated mod might help solve these issues before they happen. 

I would volunteer for such a position, but there are some days where I can’t access my computer and I have no idea how well I could moderate from a phone lol. 

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

Two, they would probably kick my ass in a genuine debate.

Don’t sell yourself short m8. One of my main issues is that I’m to literal and often too much of an ideologue for my own good that I can’t see the forest for the trees. That dude Key Sharks exploited that frequently to destroy me in debate. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Twiggy

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

2 hours ago, Jeric said:

I am assuming that this is not due to a specific message or moderation action. Otherwise I would have just locked this and invited an honest private conversation between the Administration and you over how the site is moderated. In the we allowed these sorts of discussions to go on and on and on under the guise and pretense it was for community improvement, which it rarely ever was. So if this is the case let me know now so we can take this up in a DM. 

I asked that this be moved to Feedback. I’ll allow the community to opine. My initial (but not final) thoughts on DS are this: 

In the end most of what I tossed into the Debate section are best practices. Using a logical fallacy or incorrect information isn’t going to be challenged by staff directly. I do want to give the younger or less experienced users who may not be aware of the finer points of Philosophy a chance to give their thoughts. The rules currently all boil down to one general thing — don’t be an insulting asshat. That will never change. 

I did entertain the idea of a more structured and formal format for debate, however it quickly became very apparent that few people know how formal debates are conducted. Also, because of the general level and flavor of pathos and humor found in that section, finding staffers willing to manage such a concept becomes a time sink none of us are prepared to undertake. The reputation of that section precedes it. Sometimes it is impossible to tell if someone there is being genuinely naive, a troll, or so caught up in their own internal vacuum of ideas that they can here anything beyond the white noise of their chosen talking points. Such is the internet. 

And then there is my personal taste. There are users in there I would love to engage with on a discussion. All of them have widely diverse views. @Twiggy and @Goat-kun are definitely not individuals who share my personal worldview but I actually enjoy reading what they have to say, and even engaging them from time to time. I certainly don’t want to have a formal debate with them. For one, I have a feeling that they wouldn’t like that sort of overly structured system. Two, they would probably kick my ass in a genuine debate.  I’m like most and don’t like losing.

 

So, if anyone has any other thoughts on the section, shoot away. 

I see. I guess that's fair since most of people would want to keep their arguments short and sweet which results in them being informal in the long run in order for it to be easily digestible for viewers unlike a formal argument which requires a bit more to digest. For the record I mostly come across naive when it comes to debating with users around here in the grand scheme of things.

However, what you've wrote as your general rule is what I've come to observe so far in my experience with Debate Pit, but on a more grey area issue. While I understand most users are not trying to come across as an insulting asshat, what I take issue with is how they don't need to come across as an insulting asshat in their posts directly. Instead they can indirectly come across as an insulting asshat by being passive aggressive, backhanded provokers within their posts. Let me give an example that would demonstrate my point,

I make a point that I believe Suffering is not a good excuse IMO because it is a part of Life and anyone who makes an argument that "This So-and-So will suffer" as a logical argument comes across as an emotional response whenever someone makes a post about something that involves Suffering towards something or someone and doesn't necessarily mean that this argument is logical in anyway. Here's a rebuttal from one of my opposers, 

Quote

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Sure, suffering is part of life but that doesn't mean that it's fine to cause suffering. I mean you would probably get pretty mad if I kicked you in the balls, even though suffering is a part of life.

How does this help me understand this person's argument in question? If anything he comes across as a passive aggressive, backhanded, provoking person misconstruing the point of what I originally intended about my argument towards Suffering.

Like I said it's a grey area issue here where on one hand maybe that's not what I perceive as such since he's just a making a point. However it doesn't change the fact that my opposer is currently going on an emotional tangent where an argument could be made that he's implicitly coming across as an 'insulting asshat' or 'being a dick' which is unacceptable.

Not only was this example of mine misconstrued, but from my experiences there are certain topics where these posts unfortunately come across as such.

If this grey area issue is acceptable behavior in Debate Pit then I believe the time is right to create a new Area within the EverFree Forest Forum. This new area within the EverFree Forest Forum shall be known as "The Rhetoric Grounds of Tartarus" where people don't have to respect your opinions, understand where you're coming from, and have a meaningful discussion unlike Debate Pit. Instead you get to crush opposing ideas, questions, opinions, and facts people make at any means necessary. Committing Logical Fallacies in the highest order? Check. Insulting your opponents left and right? Check. Defecating all over their arguments to make it completely irrelevant without explaining why it's irrelevant? Check. Ridiculing your opponents forever even if they die? Check.

That or what @Twiggy said and get a Mod for DS lol. 

2 hours ago, Frostgage said:

Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting an institution to be the best it can possibly be. However, it's important to remember that this is just the internet, and a public forum at that. No user should be obligated to see a debate all the way through to the end, display perfect logic in all of their posts, or anything of that sort - I believe this is why that excerpt is called "best practices" and not straight-up rules. The only requirement is the general "don't be a dick" thing Jeric mentioned; as long as people are posting in order to debate the given topic and not to simply antagonize others, that's the most you can ask for. imo this is just the reality of the internet and something you'll have to live with, regardless of whom you feel is in the right in a given situation.

Well I understand what you mean, but from my experience while some of my opponents are not coming across as 'dickheads' directly, they are indirectly coming across as passive aggressive, backhanded, provoking, shit stirrers which is another form of being a 'dickhead' though indirectly of course. You can look all over my post with the example to see my point. Other than that I agree and understand where you're coming from. Perhaps my mind can go off the literal route where if I practice and preach hard enough than it becomes secondary in nature to me and anybody who opposes what I practice and preach accordingly in wherever I am, it comes across as if they're breaking DA RULZ when really Practicing and Preaching doesn't necessarily have to correlate with Following the Rules.

[SparklingSquirrels 21,341]

Certainly everyone has their own interpretation of what a “dickhead” means. Some people would call the quote Zetha posted as being “dickish” and others wouldn’t. And people tend to get pretty tensed up when debating and say more forceful things than they usually would, particularly online, so I think it’s hard to avoid those kinds of comments completely :1 

I used to post in the debate pit from time to time, not necessarily to debate but just to offer my views on the subject and see what others think. I wasn’t really interested in formal debating and an overly structured system and I think many others feel the same (Nowadays I mostly just lurk).

That said, the free structure does allow for debates to spiral out of control sometimes. People will start to talk/argue about things unrelated to the topic at hand, which can make it difficult for a new user to get into the debate. So I support Twiggy’s idea of having a debate symposium mod who can check on the threads each day or so to ensure everything is running smoothly.

[Jeric 46,851]

I’m honestly not going to get into the argument of subjective moderation of what constitutes being abusive. You can’t possibly itemize everything under the sun, and the more comprehensive you try to be, the more the assumptions exist that the absence of an example  makes it acceptable. I’ve been personally called homophobic and anti-religion on the same day and related to the same moderation situation and topic. That isn’t completely uncommon because it is natural to assume those in power are acting against you when a topic is shuttered, even if that isn’t the case. But that shows you how you can’t make things bias proof and objective. Honestly we need some passion in these topics. 

 

 

Maybe a longer discussion of my general musings about debate and moderation in there will at least allow some clarity of a very very hard to clarify subject. 

I want civil discussion, but I personally have nothing against cleverly applied snarky comments about a political idea or view point. Saying a view point is absurd may get some of the staff bristling, but I’m likely to undo anything that comes from that if there isn’t a direct insult to the person. While I have stated publicly that I hate how the term SJW an fascist are too casually used, I’m not going to shut down a discussion surrounding these two words. There are generally words that shouldn’t be used, obviously. I’d honestly stay clear of charged words like fag, retard, and the like. 

That said, two things I want to make clear because these issues have been reported and staff won’t act on them. Calling a public official a derogatory word isn’t going to be acted on. While I would prefer that points be made without that, that tends fall into the pick and choose your battles type of situation. I’d rather hide a user calling another user an insult than a user venting about an elected official. People don’t like the President and people do not like Ocasio-Cortez. I get it. They aren’t users here so I don’t feel any Administrative duty to protect their honor and reputation. 

As far as passive aggressive, man that is hard to effectively moderate. Like I said, I tend to allow some leeway. I don’t want to send a chilling effect on people who put some of their personality into their posts. Are there moments that people can cross the line? Of course, but it’s like that SCOTUS Justice that said “I know it when I see it” when he was referring to porn. You can usually tell when a debate is becoming toxic. 

Similar that is the obsession with some users on one subject. Careful observation over the years will tell you that staff will grow weary of one user making topics that amount to a singular idea if that idea is predicated on a group. We have had to remove users who constantly made topics focused on “I hate men!” And “I hate Muslims”. Eventually we will say it needs to slow or stop. 

While we will allow some contentious topics some breathing room, some topics will not be allowed. One example of that is the occasional defense of pedophilia or beastiality. Not here. 

And yes I know I can come across as a smartass in DM’s when people use regurgitated phases about abuse of power, bias, and censorship, but if anyone disagrees with a discussion being locked I will hear them out, especially of there is some form of compromise solution. I mean, it’s a shame we can’t have more delicate conversations here about sex and other hot topics without someone going out of their way to make it weird for others due to some self-indulgence pushing their to talk about their fetish experiences and desires. 

Anyway, just a few random thoughts to keep discussion going

[Mini 451]

I think people should enter the debate symposium with a grain of salt. Proper debating etiquette isn't enforced there. I don't post in the debate symposium because every time I've lurked there it looks really toxic. If you want to post in there, then have a go at it. But be mindful that this is the internet and people can get really vitriolic and hostile when they're pretty much anonymous and have firm beliefs. Everyone's life is a story and they've experienced different things to you; so when you're debating touchy topics like politics, religion, etc., emotions are bound to come out. Unfortunately proper debating etiquette would be way too restrictive. If moderated so that any sort of emotionally-charged or passive-aggressive arguments were removed, the mods would have a lot of work to do every day. 

But to at least somewhat improve the DS, Twiggy's idea that there should be a dedicated mod is definitely the way to go. I'm surprised that there isn't already a dedicated mod but I guess who the hell wants to moderate the DS.

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

38 minutes ago, Jeric said:

I’m honestly not going to get into the argument of subjective moderation of what constitutes being abusive. You can’t possibly itemize everything under the sun, and the more comprehensive you try to be, the more the assumptions exist that the absence of an example  makes it acceptable. I’ve been personally called homophobic and anti-religion on the same day and related to the same moderation situation and topic. That isn’t completely uncommon because it is natural to assume those in power are acting against you when a topic is shuttered, even if that isn’t the case. But that shows you how you can’t make things bias proof and objective. Honestly we need some passion in these topics. 

 

 

Maybe a longer discussion of my general musings about debate and moderation in there will at least allow some clarity of a very very hard to clarify subject. 

I want civil discussion, but I personally have nothing against cleverly applied snarky comments about a political idea or view point. Saying a view point is absurd may get some of the staff bristling, but I’m likely to undo anything that comes from that if there isn’t a direct insult to the person. While I have stated publicly that I hate how the term SJW an fascist are too casually used, I’m not going to shut down a discussion surrounding these two words. There are generally words that shouldn’t be used, obviously. I’d honestly stay clear of charged words like fag, retard, and the like. 

That said, two things I want to make clear because these issues have been reported and staff won’t act on them. Calling a public official a derogatory word isn’t going to be acted on. While I would prefer that points be made without that, that tends fall into the pick and choose your battles type of situation. I’d rather hide a user calling another user an insult than a user venting about an elected official. People don’t like the President and people do not like Ocasio-Cortez. I get it. They aren’t users here so I don’t feel any Administrative duty to protect their honor and reputation. 

As far as passive aggressive, man that is hard to effectively moderate. Like I said, I tend to allow some leeway. I don’t want to send a chilling effect on people who put some of their personality into their posts. Are there moments that people can cross the line? Of course, but it’s like that SCOTUS Justice that said “I know it when I see it” when he was referring to porn. You can usually tell when a debate is becoming toxic. 

Similar that is the obsession with some users on one subject. Careful observation over the years will tell you that staff will grow weary of one user making topics that amount to a singular idea if that idea is predicated on a group. We have had to remove users who constantly made topics focused on “I hate men!” And “I hate Muslims”. Eventually we will say it needs to slow or stop. 

While we will allow some contentious topics some breathing room, some topics will not be allowed. One example of that is the occasional defense of pedophilia or beastiality. Not here. 

And yes I know I can come across as a smartass in DM’s when people use regurgitated phases about abuse of power, bias, and censorship, but if anyone disagrees with a discussion being locked I will hear them out, especially of there is some form of compromise solution. I mean, it’s a shame we can’t have more delicate conversations here about sex and other hot topics without someone going out of their way to make it weird for others due to some self-indulgence pushing their to talk about their fetish experiences and desires. 

Anyway, just a few random thoughts to keep discussion going

Well I want to thank you. I appreciate your honesty with where you're coming with the rest of your points. The key points that I highlighted out in bold however, while a fair point, is one of those 'Grey Area' Issues indeed and seems like nothing can be done about it unless there was a mod willing to observe the Grey Area effectively. Because at the end of the day, what I've experienced towards my adversaries was a one big giant loophole they're exploiting when Debating with me in the long run. Clever and Devious.

I'm not really as smart as I thought compared to my opposers.

Just read this fascinating article after you made your post,

https://lifehacker.com/bending-the-rules-when-are-loopholes-evil-1648397509

If this is how things are truly going down at Debate Pit, then I might as well not even bother. No matter how formal I make my arguments, how direct I come across when debating, and how thought-provoking I make my points without coming across disrespectful at all in order to make a meaningful discussion, none of it ultimately matters. Because of this loophole to be a 'dickhead' indirectly to the point that anyone can exercise their right to be a passive aggressive provoker without making it come across as such. That's frightening.

Well just like smoking I'm going to start quitting making any more future posts on Debate Symposium from this point on and simply not even bother. Because its ultimately meaningless thanks to this loophole Debaters can cheekily exploit. Why be an insulting asshat directly, when you can do so indirectly without making it seem like as such? Holy Shit. My mind's going off the deep end that I never thought it would go. I wonder if I did it too. Did I? Yes? No? Maybe? IDK.

Excuse me if you will, I'm just gonna have a mental breakdown. But I'm done. K thanks bye.

[Goat-kun 2,527]

Dickheads are part and parcel of internet debates. Heck, I'm one of them. I'm a huge dickhead. And so, in accordance with my vile interests, I say: if it's not illegal, don't mod it. Of course, Poniverse has certain added rules and unwritten mechanics one needs to navigate but it's still more permissive than most fan sites out there.

 

P.S: not being able to counter an exploit in a debate is a shortcoming of a debater. The debate pit is fine. L2P

[Jeric 46,851]

42 minutes ago, ZethaPonderer said:

Excuse me if you will, I'm just gonna have a mental breakdown. But I'm done. K thanks bye.

Not to further that thought spiral, but 

That insightful video basically illustrates why I personally wade carefully in internet debate. It also explains why I do not engage someone over more than four posts if I am trying to instill a seed of doubt in someone’s mind. 

Of course, most of the times I do post in Debate when I am in a friendly mood, it’s not to prove someone wrong, or to change a mind. Sometimes I just like having a conversation regarding life and politics. A conversation for conversations sake is not a bad motivation. 

[TBD 17,254]

Basically If you can’t take the heat then beat it. I used to think as you but as time progresses I learn it’s not the people problems, it’s my own arrogant in not allowing myself to be open minded to different view and experiences. You can’t expect people to see eye to eye or stand the same level as you. If everyone were to speak the same as you hell the world be boring and mindless.  If one wish to shout out because they feel what’s wrong hear them out. Respect comes in both ways. What I learn is what makes a bad debater is arrogance.

When I say *you I don’t mean just you. I’m saying to those who would think the same. I have to admit I never have any problem with the people here at the debate in mlpf. Of all my experiences in a internet debate, people here are respectful and have contributed valid points enough for me to be more open minded and be more tolerant around people with different views as me. I don’t have to agree to them but it was sure a food for a thought.   

[MangoFoalix 24,956]

This is the reason why I try to avoid the "Debate Pit". Sure, you can get your view along and some may agree with you but there are others that will just go on for hours trying to refute your points and just say you are wrong. It's not worth my time talking to a wall.

[ZethaPonderer 2,199]

14 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Not to further that thought spiral, but 

That insightful video basically illustrates why I personally wade carefully in internet debate. It also explains why I do not engage someone over more than four posts if I am trying to instill a seed of doubt in someone’s mind. 

Of course, most of the times I do post in Debate when I am in a friendly mood, it’s not to prove someone wrong, or to change a mind. Sometimes I just like having a conversation regarding life and politics. A conversation for conversations sake is not a bad motivation. 

Ok I did some mental recovery techniques to get my sanity under control for the time being. I see. Well I wasn't intending to come across as someone who wanted to change their minds, but more so elaborate my points again for why they are deeming it irrelevant to the discussion exactly because I don't really understand where they're coming from. I'm not the kind of person that would want to change people's way of thinking. That's not who I am and not what I want to be. What I take issue with is, If they don't want to come across 'tolerant' with my posts and willing to take offense to shit all over my posts then that's A.O.K when Debating in general? Interesting. Never thought of it that way before. Though I don't agree with the line of reasoning they're going with I did acknowledge some of their points within the post that was meaningful for me to understand where they're coming from. Was it not good enough for them? Then it stops being a Debate as a form of Discussion anymore and more of a Debate as a form of Rhetoric at that point.

 

12 minutes ago, TBD said:

Basically If you can’t take the heat then beat it. I used to think as you but as time progresses I learn it’s not the people problems, it’s my own arrogant in not allowing myself to be open minded to different view and experiences. You can’t expect people to see eye to eye or stand the same level as you. If everyone were to speak the same as you hell the world be boring and mindless.  If one wish to shout out because they feel what’s wrong hear them out. Respect comes in both ways. What I learn is what makes a bad debater is arrogance.

When I say *you I don’t mean just you. I’m saying to those who would think the same. I have to admit I never have any problem with the people here at the debate in mlpf. Of all my experiences in a internet debate, people here are respectful and have contributed valid points enough for me to be more open minded and be more tolerant around people with different views as me. I don’t have to agree to them but it was sure a food for a thought.   

Well I will and did admit at one point in making my post in my past Debates that I do come across as an arrogant piece of shit. But, I hate that self within me so much so that I'm desperately meditating beyond my limits (physical, mental, spiritual, and psychological) trying to conquer my arrogance to the point where I am nothing. I will not deny that I might be blind on one eye while I can see fine on the other. But, I make sure I do my best to understand their points. Guess I have a long way to go to fully eradicate the arrogance within me 100% and obtain the other eye. Cause all Human Beings possess arrogance. I did learn a lot from my opposers though I will admit that.

[TBD 17,254]

2 hours ago, ZethaPonderer said:

Well I will and did admit at one point in making my post in my past Debates that I do come across as an arrogant piece of shit. But, I hate that self within me so much so that I'm desperately meditating beyond my limits (physical, mental, spiritual, and psychological) trying to conquer my arrogance to the point where I am nothing. I will not deny that I might be blind on one eye while I can see fine on the other. But, I make sure I do my best to understand their points. Guess I have a long way to go to fully eradicate the arrogance within me 100% and obtain the other eye. Cause all Human Beings possess arrogance. I did learn a lot from my opposers though I will admit that.

Yeah same. Arrogant would sneak up on us when we least know it. But there’s no need to beat yourself for it because as long one’s acknowledged it that shows growth.  I do get a impression that there’s moment when the other debater refuses to read your whole texts carefully, because either their anger or arrogance gets in a way and then replies to it without a full understanding your point of view. I do find that frustrating. However, how I would overcome this is take a deep breath, let it go and read what they have to say like twice.  You’d be surprised to find a point or two from them that  you’d find reasonable or interesting. Once you find something that you never thought of, engage that with that person. That way you can also be able to share yours once things has settle down. That is if that person isn’t too much of an idiot and is willing to hear it. If not, then you’d know not to waste your breath on them. I think that if two debaters is being angry at each other, nothing will be accomplished. I’d keep that in mind every time I go to debate. It’s works and sometimes it doesn’t. But I’ll say it does make me feel less frustrated when debating and knowing how to deal with debaters as you described, in a reasonable manners a lot better.

So basically instead of being upset with the debater on how they are, come up a better way to approach to them. That would make less of an headache for yourself.

If you haven’t tried that way yet, I think its a good mental exercise. Just something i’d like to share on how I deal with it.

Edited July 16, 2019 by TBD
A little add on

[Jeric 46,851]

Not to debate about debate, but fairness is dumb in this context. If I act like a jerk to everyone then I’m being fair, but I’m not exactly making that place conducive to a people wanting to pop in. 

Respect is interesting too. I’ve already mentioned a few I respect in in Debate, and yes there are those with some viewpoints and ideas I consider ... problematic. Saying I should respect those views or even the individual is something I can’t agree on, and I certainly don’t want to enforce some fake level of respect. 

I ultimately think what you are referring to here is ‘tone’ @Bas and that is a whole different topic. I tend to approach tone with a wide angled lens. A few contentious posts with a biting tone isn’t a bad thing. That is called passion and some of these topics lead to passionate arguments. If it isn’t descending to insults levied at the poster, they I tend to allow it unless it goes on so long with just two people that it no longer feels like a public discussion. 

This is one area that I think comes down to it being an individual thing. When someone is blunt and sharp with criticism, it’s easy to fall into the tap of assigning an inner voice to those words that adds to the perspective that they are an “enemy” and not an opponent in a debate. 

I’m really never going to moderate tone outside of a post reminding people that things are starting to get a bit angry and maybe take it down a notch. This sort of goes to personality and it’s dangerous to disallow some of that to come through on content. People leave sites that do that. There used to be a time we did moderate tone heavily there because it was hard to keep trolls and ban evaders out. Then we changed the post count to access Debate and it really is just a core group of users that participate in it. I think I can allow some leeway with tone nowadays. 

[Jeric 46,851]

I think staff has made our policy pretty clear here. Locking.