Debate etiquette

[El Cid]

Same with me. When I was young all political questions were simple and obvious and those who disagreed were either stupid or evil.

I get especially frustrated now when I read comments from people obviously repeating my youthful failings and my inability to get through to them.

 

I find that people use their own experience, as if it means its a fact.

People that went through the grammar school system, badly, and then site that as a reason they are ineffective.

[Santo]

I'm sure there must actually be some official rules, for debating, as at major universities such as oxford Cambridge etc, they have competitions and one side wins, so just paste these rules, anyone who can find them.

 

It amazes me how poor the debate is on Question Time.

 

Yes, debate societies exist at Universities. I think those watching vote on who they think has won so it's still subjective rather than a 'scientific' win. A killer put-down will be remembered even if, strictly speaking, it's an ad hominem and outside the 'rules.'

[Robin-H]

I do think we have to be realistic though. A discussion forum is very likely to be largely made up of opinion based on anecdotal experience. Surely that's to be expected. It's interesting to hear other people's experiences especially when they are so different from our own and they are often quite persuasive. If a person was only interested in objective facts they could subscribe to any number of research journals.

 

I agree. I have posted it on here before but that is why I think Forum Rules 14 is rather strange.

 

It states that 'all opinions must be based on true facts'.

 

As you say, opinion is largely based on anecdotal experience, and I think there can be a place for that in debate.

[petemcewan]

Ronjeremy,

 

Just out of curiosity. If you care to.What do you mean by "Reactionary " ?

[Bob Arctor]

I agree. I have posted it on here before but that is why I think Forum Rules 14 is rather strange.

 

It states that 'all opinions must be based on true facts'.

 

As you say, opinion is largely based on anecdotal experience, and I think there can be a place for that in debate.

 

I think some people over-insist on facts. If you read something that you can see is irrational or illogical and you think it's unreliable you can just choose to disregard it. Insisting that the other person back up their opinion with facts when that seems impossible seems like a bit of a waste of time.

[Robin-H]

I think some people over-insist on facts. If you read something that you can see is irrational or illogical and you think it's unreliable you can just choose to disregard it. Insisting that the other person back up their opinion with facts when that seems impossible seems like a bit of a waste of time.

 

For me it depends on how it is phrased. If someone portrays an opinion as a fact then I expect them to, if challenged, be able to back that fact up.

 

If something is portrayed as an opinion they can claim whatever they like, no matter how outlandish.

[Bob Arctor]

For me it depends on how it is phrased. If someone portrays an opinion as a fact then I expect them to, if challenged, be able to back that fact up.

 

If something is portrayed as an opinion they can claim whatever they like, no matter how outlandish.

 

Certainly if the alleged fact is potentially harmful, e.g. people on benefits are cheats and liars, then it's good to challenge it. However, people who post these things are not going to try to back it up so it's generally better to give a sound counter-argument than to try to get an irrational person to start being rational.

[unbeliever]

Certainly if the alleged fact is potentially harmful, e.g. people on benefits are cheats and liars, then it's good to challenge it. However, people who post these things are not going to try to back it up so it's generally better to give a sound counter-argument than to try to get an irrational person to start being rational.

 

It's always nice to squash an ill-informed argument with evidence. Getting rid of them would rather spoil our fun.

[apelike]

Does dogma get worse in old age, I would think most people 25 and under would more likely to listen.

 

I'm not so sure about that as personally I find that getting older gives me more chance to listen and learn, and also more eager to question. I think most younger people are the ones more likely to give out abuse or try and deride a person because they don't agree with what has been posted.

 

Stating that someone is an idiot or should stop posting because they don't have the intelligence to "keep up with the big boys" is just insulting. I'm not sure but I don't think in all the time I have been on SF that I have ever insulted anyone because I disagreed with their post. I was about to say I don't use the word "fact" but realise I did on the smart meter thread but that was probably a one off.

[RonJeremy]

Ronjeremy,

 

Just out of curiosity. If you care to.What do you mean by "Reactionary " ?

 

Reactionary? I suppose I meant instant reactions to something stated that may not have been thought through thoroughly or perhaps an ill judged reply that could appear blunt or rude.