Debate etiquette

[unbeliever]

But it is still unenforceable. Who is to say whether an anecdotal experience is factual or not - indeed I was talking to the Dalai Lama about this just the other day and in my opinion he agreed wholeheartedly with me..

 

I think you would have to give yourself away by your own words.

[L00b]

But it is still unenforceable. Who is to say whether an anecdotal experience is factual or not - indeed I was talking to the Dalai Lama about this just the other day and in my opinion he agreed wholeheartedly with me..

Don't know about you, but I make a distinction between recounting an experience and fantasising/lying, and my default starting position in any debate is to lend good faith (under which, an experience recounted by another poster in the context of a discussion or debate is not assumed to be a lie), until and unless a poster's behaviour or post content demonstrates otherwise.

 

And in that context, if the experience is recounted accurately indeed, all anecdotal that it may be in terms of evidential value, it is factual. What happened, happened. Recounting what happened does not abstract or take away from the factuality of what happened.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by L00b

[Bob Arctor]

In partial defence of emoticons, sometimes a smiley or a wink (******?) is appropriate to make clear that you are being a bit tongue in cheek or light-hearted. Never this though:loopy: , may as well call the person a ****.

 

W i n k e r is banned? Hilarious!

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Maybe SF should have proper Standing Orders of the sort that govern formal debates.

"Mr Chairman, on a Point of Order.."

[Solomon1]

Maybe SF should have proper Standing Orders of the sort that govern formal debates.

"Mr Chairman, on a Point of Order.."

 

I'd definitely be up for that

 

We need a bit of umpiring for the forum limpets

[unbeliever]

Maybe SF should have proper Standing Orders of the sort that govern formal debates.

"Mr Chairman, on a Point of Order.."

 

I suggest parliamentary rules. You'll need to talk to the admins about assigning each user a constituency.

 

The (right) honourable gentlemen for S5 is off his rocker :daftemoticon:. That sort of thing.

[petemcewan]

You are joking of course ?

 

Discussion forums are on the decline. People decamping to other social media. If you want to kill Sheffield Discussion Forum stone dead, impose

parliamentary rules of debate. What a dreadful, sterile forum it would become.

Edited September 16, 2016 by petemcewan

[*_ash_*]

You are joking of course ?

 

Discussion forums are on the decline. People decamping to other social media. If you want to kill Sheffield Discussion Forum stone dead, impose

parliamentary rules of debate. What a dreadful, sterile forum it would become.

 

Shame, but probably right.

 

I looked at a facebook Sheffield discussion thing, and a single post/thread might have 100 responses, and 99.9% of them are obviously from the type of people who I meet in my job, who call their kids things like McDakota.

 

[unbeliever]

You are joking of course ?

 

Discussion forums are on the decline. People decamping to other social media. If you want to kill Sheffield Discussion Forum stone dead, impose

parliamentary rules of debate. What a dreadful, sterile forum it would become.

 

Sorry for the delay

Having started a thread on how we should be nicer to each other, I just got back off a 3 day suspension. That's irony for you.

Still trying to find out what for. I was being mean about Corbyn and Momentum again, so probably that.

 

No I think parliamentary rules might be going too far. I just find them entertaining when I watch parliament. I think sometimes it promotes more thoughtful argument.

[alchresearch]

I was being mean about Corbyn and Momentum again, so probably that.

 

C4 Dispatches report on them coming up soon:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/momentum-dispatches-channel-4_uk_57dd4d22e4b0d584f7f148cc