Benefits AND costs

[narcimund 0]

How do people argue in Speaker's Corner? They champion their cause by creating a new thread which names the benefits of their partisan position -- as if it were free and obvious.

Then come the detractors who ignore those benefits but list the costs. Next, the counter-rebuttal comes in, ignoring the costs, but with a stronger commentary about the benefits. Back and forth... ad infinitum

Example:

"My candidate would give everyone a five dollar bill."

"Yes, but you didn't mention that your candidate would steal $20 from every third person to pay for it and keep the extra himself."

"But 66% of everyone would be $5 richer! Think of the poor children who will get a nutritious lunch. Children shouldn't starve!"

--

Imagine how much more efficient (and honest) all these discussions would be if the initial poster would lay out the whole case instead of hiding the ugly bits in favor of their conclusion. Whole humans who sincerely wanted the world to be a better place would think about -- and be willing to talk about -- both sides before pronouncing a summation.

Very few people like that participate in Speaker's Corner. What a shame.

Oh... before I forget, Clinton got a blowjob.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[purnell 0]

You're ignoring how much additional effort posters will have to put in to their initial posts in order to completely spell out the benefits and the costs.

-- Think of the extra time people will have to put into evaluating both sides of every issue.

-- Think of the bandwidth wasted explaining both sides of every issue.

-- Think of how much longer it will take to read every post.

This will never work.

[Richards 0]

I admire your intent, but it will never happen in SC. Too many people like to turn this into an ego contest. Chest beating, heckling and PA's , are the favourite activity of many people who post here so in the end you will never be able to fully acheive constructive debate. Good idea though.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Andy9o8 0]

I think the bigger problem is people who totally hijack the topic of the thread by making it all about whether someone is getting personal with him/her; because, after all, it's really "all about them". There are several people who do this chronically, and generally they make crashing bores out of themselves when they do this.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I think the bigger problem is people who totally hijack the topic of the thread by making it all about whether someone is getting personal with him/her; because, after all, it's really "all about them". There are several people who do this chronically, and generally they make crashing bores out of themselves when they do this.

Excellent point. Then there are also those who will hijack any thread for the sole purpose of getting a personal jab in to an earlier poster, ignoring the topic gleefully just so long as they can insult someone -- usually obliquely so they can plausibly deny it later.

This would be another distraction that, like yours, is completely irrelevant to the topic I originally posed. But like yours, is also irritating in the extreme. Don't you agree?

Edited to add: Does anyone else feel like acknowledging the original idea or is it more fun to just play gotcha?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You're ignoring how much additional effort posters will have to put in to their initial posts in order to completely spell out the benefits and the costs.

-- Think of the extra time people will have to put into evaluating both sides of every issue.

-- Think of the bandwidth wasted explaining both sides of every issue.

-- Think of how much longer it will take to read every post.

This will never work.

Nice turnabout

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[akarunway 1]

Quote

How do people argue in Speaker's Corner? They champion their cause by creating a new thread which names the benefits of their partisan position -- as if it were free and obvious.

Then come the detractors who ignore those benefits but list the costs. Next, the counter-rebuttal comes in, ignoring the costs, but with a stronger commentary about the benefits. Back and forth... ad infinitum

Example:

"My candidate would give everyone a five dollar bill."

"Yes, but you didn't mention that your candidate would steal $20 from every third person to pay for it and keep the extra himself."

"But 66% of everyone would be $5 richer! Think of the poor children who will get a nutritious lunch. Children shouldn't starve!"

--

Imagine how much more efficient (and honest) all these discussions would be if the initial poster would lay out the whole case instead of hiding the ugly bits in favor of their conclusion. Whole humans who sincerely wanted the world to be a better place would think about -- and be willing to talk about -- both sides before pronouncing a summation.

Very few people like that participate in Speaker's Corner. What a shame.

Oh... before I forget, Clinton got a blowjob.

And I threw a cig. butt on the ground last nite.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I think the bigger problem is people who totally hijack the topic of the thread by making it all about whether someone is getting personal with him/her; because, after all, it's really "all about them". There are several people who do this chronically, and generally they make crashing bores out of themselves when they do this.

Excellent point. Then there are also those who will hijack any thread for the sole purpose of getting a personal jab in to an earlier poster, ignoring the topic gleefully just so long as they can insult someone -- usually obliquely so they can plausibly deny it later.

This would be another distraction that, like yours, is completely irrelevant to the topic I originally posed. But like yours, is also irritating in the extreme. Don't you agree?

Edited to add: Does anyone else feel like acknowledging the original idea or is it more fun to just play gotcha?

Don't despair. I generally agree with you on most substantive points, and sometimes defend your points, too. But my point here is valid, also: don't make it so hard to be your ideological ally. The Neanderthals who yank your chain with PAs just to watch you react aren't worth the validation.
Now let's join hands and sing "We Shall Overcome."

[Squeak 17]

Quote

I admire your intent, but it will never happen in SC. Too many people like to turn this into an ego contest. Chest beating, heckling and PA's , are the favourite activity of many people who post here so in the end you will never be able to fully acheive constructive debate. Good idea though.

Richards

I agree with you on this Richards. Constructive debate actually requires people to approach said debate with an educated perspcetive, something which is largely lacking on most Forums and boards not just SC or Dizzy in general.

As a rule i dont enter into pollitical debates here on SC because they are largely USA based and my knowledge of the USA pollitical system is very limited. I will however enterinto debate with others on areas that I do have some prior knowledge or interest in. But before commentingin those debates I will ARM myself with some knowledge so as to ensure I have aty least a valid (IMO) point to offer

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Constructive debate actually requires people to approach said debate with an educated perspcetive, something which is largely lacking on most Forums and boards not just SC or Dizzy in general.

I have to disagree with your analysis. Most (not all) people who argue here are fairly well educated about their area of interest.

The problem isn't lack of knowledge. It's lack of integrity.

People here don't want to present both sides -- they want to present hand-picked tidbits that support their conclusion and hide the parts that don't.

Why? I believe it's because most people don't believe their conclusion is justified. They don't think that if people knew everything that their side would prevail.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

People here don't want to present both sides -- they want to present hand-picked tidbits that support their conclusion and hide the parts that don't.

Why? I believe it's because most people don't believe their conclusion is justified. They don't think that if people knew everything that their side would prevail.

In general that's how debates are run, you dont offer critasism for your own POV you highlight supportr for it.
I you debate an argument (in the litteral sense of the word) you offer up an opinion supported by fact (real or just beleived). yuou dont point both sides of you own argument forward, there would bo no point in others contributing otherwise

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

• Quote

[narcimund 0]

Quote

In general that's how debates are run

Debate is a child's game meant to exercise young minds' analytical skills in school.

Political discussion for the purpose of gathering honest, loyal support to a thoughtful position because you honestly believe in it is different.

When adults rely on debate for the second purpose I wonder why.

I believe it's largely because the participants don't actually believe the shit they're saying. If they did, they'd be comfortable enunciating balanced arguments based on the whole picture. If their conclusion were clearly right, it would show through on its own merits to anyone with a truth-loving mind.

Anything less looks like child's play and immature bullying.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Samurai136 0]

Somehow this thread seems vaguely associated with the Strawman thread from a few days ago.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Somehow this thread seems vaguely associated with the Strawman thread from a few days ago.

regardless, Narci has this place pinned right down perfectly in this thread.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Don't despair. I generally agree with you on most substantive points

Then why are you repeatedly hijacking an unrelated thread instead of writing me a personal note? Does broadcasting your private criticism of me serve a purpose?

Honestly, it's hard to tell the difference between what you're doing and the "The Neanderthals who yank {my} chain with PAs just to watch {me} react."

edited to add: By the way, I would have taken this private if you allowed private messages. I DO allow private messages but you haven't taken advantage of that.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Andy9o8 0]

So...no "We Shall Overcome"?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So...no "We Shall Overcome"?

Very cute. You insult people then criticize them for responding. Nice technique there. I'll add that to my list of crap people pull on dropzone instead of discussing the issues.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Andy9o8 0]

I neither insulted nor criticized for responding.
Unfortunate you perceive it that way.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Imagine how much more efficient (and honest) all these discussions would be if the initial poster would lay out the whole case instead of hiding the ugly bits in favor of their conclusion. Whole humans who sincerely wanted the world to be a better place would think about -- and be willing to talk about -- both sides before pronouncing a summation.

So what color is the sky in your world? (pink with rainbows?)

This isn't an English class. And even there, once you leave high school, you're expected to make an argument and support it, not blather on about all sides to prove you read the chapter.

People are spending their leisure time to make their claims - it's silly to expect them to waste even more time on the other side.

I have more trouble with people who knowingly make misleading claims and falsehoods to support their case. It's one thing to ignore the other points of view. Far worse to dress up bullshit.