Disputatio ad nauseam - Basics of debate

[Kurotsune]

Also known as "The one where Kuro tries to fruitlessly bring civilty to online forum discussions"


So, let me start this by saying that I have always championed the idea of some sort of debate hall where discussions would happen with moderators - Not forum auth but rather specific "debate moderators" - would keep to the basic ideas of debate and keep the discussion from spiraling down.

This idea has not and likely will not happen for a multitude of reasons, even though I'd claim that certain threads - Like Virisdescent's Philosopher's Gazebo - point to the possibility of there actually being fair discussion about a plethora of topics as long as the discussion has one dedicaded administrator to keep it from going awry.

Where other threads like Chase's multiple threads about several different subjects display a need/want for this type of format.

So while that format is not a thing, I've decided to create a short exposition on debates that could be referred to and, hopefully, followed within the forums. Since it's a complicated format to adapt to that usually takes a long time of accumulated experience before social conceptions of what a discussion is are won over - That is, until you lose the mentality of "whoever yells the loudest wins" - I'd rather start with a simple set of rules to be followed and strictly adhered to in an attempt at making debates flow more seamlessly and require less attention from forum moderators.

Since this is an informal thing, it'd require members themselves to be the ones to - politely - policy others and themselves to make sure these are kept to.

Of course, this can naturally also be disregarded and not followed in any way. In this case I'll gladly let this topic sink and die knowing that I've said my peace and made my attempt.

So, cutting to the chase we'll have three basic rules - And to make them sound official we'll use latin names - we'll call them Empathia, Detorqueo and Principium.

These rules are watered down versions of what is already considered proper debating form and, thus, could serve as a good stepping stone for this sort discussion.

Onto the rules!

Empathia - Or the empathy rule, is an addendum to the existing forum rule of being respectful. The only way to properly argument a point is to see yourself from the other side's shoes. Therefore the only way to truly argue a point is to momentarily throw away your own viewpoint and fully immerse yourself in the opposition's.

"Why do they think that way? If I were them, would I have done anything different? Is there anything my side could do to better compromise with theirs?"

The last sentence is key - Most successful debates end with no one "winning" - They end with compromise. The first rule dictates that the purpose of a debate is to find a solution both sides are satisfied as opposed to convincing one side of the other's opinion. No one has to concede; Both have to acquiesce.

Detorqueo - Or the misdirection rule, refers to what we call "Ignoratio Elenchi", or irrelevant conclusion. Such a fallacy is any argument that doesn't pertain to the discussion and instead serves solely to divert attention from the main subject to either buy the user time to think of a proper retort (Red herring), or hurt the reputation of the opposition by either directly offending them (Ad hominem) or appealing to their emotions to win their over in the absence of evidence (Argumentum ad passiones) or using any other such method to attempt to "win" the discussion - Which directly contradicts the "empathy" rule.

"Am I actually saying something relevant to this discussion?"

There's a great website called Logically Fallacious that lists nearly every fallacy known to man; And it's a great way to learn them for those who are curious. But for those who aren't, simply stick to the above mindset and you'll be fine - The second rule dictates that all premises in a discussion must be related to the subject of the discussion and not the subjects discussing it, and all conclusions derived from these premises must be directly and coherently related to the premises themselves.

Principium - Or the quotation rule, is by and far the simplest one to explain and refers to quoting and utilizing credible sources to back your points. It's easy to say "X has said Y!", but it's just as easy to go the extra mile and find the credible source.

And while we're at it, the definition of a credible source is a recognized third party that has no emotional investment in the subject being discussed.

An example - Looking up any feminist blog will find you data on the "Wage Gap" when finding an actual study from Stanford quickly discredits these claims based on the actual sources.

"Am I quoting someone who's done a truly impartial research - And am I providing valid evidence to those claims at all?"

The third rule is the simpler one, and it thus dictates that should you quote any one source of information other than your own logical rationality in your premises, you should provide valid evidence to that statement backed up by recognized sources, unless you're directly quoting the source.

For now, this is all I can think of - I find this, personally, to be a sensible and easy-to-follow format that shows a modicum of promise in proving the capability of actual debates being held within the community.

I think being able to maintain something like this a while would do a great deal not only to show the forum's authority that such debates can be left to the devices of the community with no ill effects and to potentially prevent all such debates from eventually being prohibited.

I say this because honestly, I'm partially in favor for that. I've started feeling every discussion I read lately in here I see the same downward spiral and at this point I think the majority is so tired of it that I'd personally be just done with them entirely.

But I believe moreso in freedom of speech and in allowing everyone to voice their opinions in a respectful environment regardless of the opinion itself - And consider this my last effort in trying to collaborate to this dream environment of mine.

I'm sorry if I sound cynical - I've the best interests of this community in my heart, but I'd not lie to everyone on my opinions just to keep a facade of positivism.

Thank you all for reading and I hope that, even if not followed, this was enlightening or, at least, slightly entertaining.

[Tartar]

Great write-up, Kuro. I appreciate you taking your time to write this basic primer for discussions, though as you stated yourself, it may be a pipe-dream to have everyone play by these rules on the internet.

The main problem being that most people when they go online and going to talk with other people aren't seeking to understand the viewpoints of others and reach some sort of compromise or truth, but to have their own views and opinions validated, to fuel their ego and self-indulgence. This is quite understandable, as it's exhausting and mentally straining to engage in the sort of debate you're advocating for, and in the end not immediately as rewarding. Perhaps in some sort of far flung utopian future we'll have an internet where people can discuss and debate in such a manner that everyone is open minded and respectful of one another.

But for now, the best way to get the best of an argument is to wholly avoid it in my eyes.

And consider this my last effort in trying to collaborate to this dream environment of mine.

And you're making it sound as if you're quitting the community or something with this sentence, which I hope isn't the case?

[Kurotsune]

And you're making it sound as if you're quitting the community or something with this sentence, which I hope isn't the case?

That sentence refers to:

Of course, this can naturally also be disregarded and not followed in any way. In this case I'll gladly let this topic sink and die knowing that I've said my peace and made my attempt.

It's just me pointing out that I'll not make another attempt at anything similar to this since it'd be half-hearted. Like I mentioned, my honest-to-god opinion is that at this point debates about "polemic subjects" (I.e. politics and religion) should just be straight-up abolished to avoid the headache they come with.

But at the same time my principles are all about everyone being allowed to say everything they want so I'd rather go down swinging at least this one time and try to throw the community the idea of a system they can uphold themselves.

[Guest]

i always wanted to use this gif eeeeeeeeee im so happy

ty based kurotsune

even if it doesn't work you tried

god knows those guidelines are needed

Edited November 10, 2016 by Telos

[Gaunt]

An interesting read, too bad it's (probably) not gonna work because this is Internet, of course the Reborn community is better than some in following rules/guidelines but in the end there are too many people who love chaos and bickering in their "discussion" and will not stop (often i am one of them) that's why lately i just avoid discussion entirely because i know where it will lead to.

One thing: if a person is (for some reason) incapable of "empathy" does it mean they are not allowed to express their point of view?

[Strider]

Maybe there should be a debate thread, with assigned topics, where people can review arguments and such, just as a way to teach people by doing.

[Kurotsune]

An interesting read, too bad it's (probably) not gonna work because this is Internet, of course the Reborn community is better than some in following rules/guidelines but in the end there are too many people who love chaos and bickering in their "discussion" and will not stop (often i am one of them) that's why lately i just avoid discussion entirely because i know where it will lead to.

One thing: if a person is (for some reason) incapable of "empathy" does it mean they are not allowed to express their point of view?

You don't have to be capable of emotional empathy to use it - That's just the name of the rule.

The idea of empathy is simple rationalization. Understanding why your opposition thinks the way they do requires thoughtful reflection for some (like myself) and emotional connection for others, but everyone can do it.

So while I wouldn't say anyone is forbidden from doing anything - since this is highly informal as mentioned - I'd say they're not encouraged to try to debate other's points if they're unwilling or incapable of doing that type of mental work.

While then you're definitely and completely able to voice your opinion, if you don't want to follow the rules of engagement, it'd be better if you simply voiced it and didn't contest anyone else's, which I think is just fair, but is ultimately not debate.

Since this is about debate, the short answer is yes, you'd be more or less forbidden if you were to strictly follow this rule set. Even if it's a biological flaw in some aspects - My own biological flaws make it so I'm a horrible shot, for example, yet I'd get no special treatment in a shooting competition. No reason to give someone special treatment because they'd be disadvantaged in an intellectual one instead.

(And I realize the use of competition is hypocritical due to the first rule itself, but bear with me, it made for a better sentence.)

Maybe there should be a debate thread, with assigned topics, where people can review arguments and such, just as a way to teach people by doing.

That's the idea of the Debate Hall subforum that I've vied for during a few months.

[AuthorReborn]

Based on the interaction that I've been seeing on the forum in recent days, I believe that there is definite viability in the Debate Hall sub-forum idea. People clearly want to engage in constructive discussions, but it is often hard to maintain civility in these circumstances without proper structure being implemented. At the very least, I believe we should begin by having every topic state in the first post the moderator who will be earnestly attempting to maintain civility, neutrality, and adherence to these rules. Another step to that would be having a system similar to the RP sub-forum, so all civil discourse and debate threads are marked as such ([Debate]). At that point, it is much easier to at least be able to dispel any claims of ignorance of the specific guidelines of the debate posts. But alas, this is just my limited viewpoint on the matter. I'm certain I have missed something and implore you to simply use this as inspiration rather than a final product.

[Ironbound]

Thank you for the mention, kuro.

I agree that a general discussion on the internet is usually far from a proper debate, but nevertheless I think that there is scope for civil discussion here in Reborn. I was pleasantly surprised by the way my own thread took off, and I think that an attempt can certainly be made (and positive results can be expected without the need for too much optimism) for a wider debate base.

Much appreciation for this guide of yours. I hope many can find it good.

[Chase]

I feel like every time Kuro mentions me it's in a scolding or some such manner intended to use me as an example of heinous discourse.

To which I say, I enjoy stirring the pot. Guilty as charged.

---

In all seriousness though, thank you for the plug, and more importantly for the guidelines. Hopefully they get pinned or don't get carried away be the current or something. I'll be referring to them often.

[Kurotsune]

I feel like every time Kuro mentions me it's in a scolding or some such manner intended to use me as an example of heinous discourse.

ididn'treallymeantomentionyouhereatallsoi'mnotsurewhichpartyou'rereferringto

Although being honest I kind of get the "scolding" thing. Anyone who I've ever taught can attest to the fact that I'm a harsh teacher, and when my mindset is to educate someone, I tend to be strict.

[HughJ]

I'm down for a subforum

Maybe we can have a petition?

Something about the fact that most debates end up in the Trainer's Journal (personal opinion/anecdote) section discourages objectivity...

[Kurotsune]

I'm down for a subforum

Maybe we can have a petition?

Something about the fact that most debates end up in the Trainer's Journal (personal opinion/anecdote) section discourages objectivity...

I see no reason not to make a petition for it, sure.

[Shamitako]

Most successful debates end with no one "winning" - They end with compromise. The first rule dictates that the purpose of a debate is to find a solution both sides are satisfied as opposed to convincing one side of the other's opinion. No one has to concede; Both have to acquiesce.

I SAID THIS *Ahem*

I said this a while back (Not near as well though >_<) I just feel happy seeing it show up again here, as I feel like this concept is ignored far too often

[Kurotsune]

I SAID THIS *Ahem*

I said this a while back (Not near as well though >_<) I just feel happy seeing it show up again here, as I feel like this concept is ignored far too often

It's one of, if not the, most important aspect to debates in general, and oft goes ignored.

[HughJ]

How do we go about creating a petition?

Adding a poll option post, with "Yes" for a subforum being a signature?

[Kurotsune]

How do we go about creating a petition?

Adding a poll option post, with "Yes" for a subforum being a signature?

I'd try and have a more fleshed out idea and system before that.

This could be used as a ruleset, sure, but a more forum-centric definition should be made for things like "who is moderating?"

[HughJ]

I'd try and have a more fleshed out idea and system before that.

This could be used as a ruleset, sure, but a more forum-centric definition should be made for things like "who is moderating?"

Yeah

Some questions that come to mind about the role of the moderator:

You said they wouldn't be forum authority, but would they be a subforum authority? (As in the RP section)

To what extent can the moderator get involved in the debate?

- Can they speak only objectively (not coming into the debate with set arguments, only working with others')?

- Should they only enforce the rules, or can they provide other logical critiques of others' arguments?

Would it be a constant role assigned to a group of people, or can you 'turn off' the responsibility of mediation for a debate you would like to subjectively participate in?

How much say does the OP (provided they aren't a moderator) have in the rules of their specific thread?

I'm not looking for anything absolute, I just want to get your inclinations on these ideas - whether they fit with your concept of a moderator, or should be polled

[Commander]

While there is a lot of reading and good reading to take in, I feel one of the bigger reasons a thread gets locked really hasn't been mentioned. People are going to break these rules in a debate, but a single individual does not cause a thread to be locked. It's how people respond and act towards people who break these rules that often creates a spiral effect.

I do think a sub-forum wouldn't be bad for this (I thought we had the political soap box, but I can't recall whether or not if that was a thread or forum), but I think there should be a slight penalty system of either warning points for major violations (though most probably would only last a week at the most) or paying a fine with rupees, however the latter wouldn't really work given the site update. I suppose something could be done with the exp system to really reward those who follow protocols or stay within line. You gotta have a system to teach them as telling really hasn't worked.

That sentence refers to:

It's just me pointing out that I'll not make another attempt at anything similar to this since it'd be half-hearted. Like I mentioned, my honest-to-god opinion is that at this point debates about "polemic subjects" (I.e. politics and religion) should just be straight-up abolished to avoid the headache they come with.

But at the same time my principles are all about everyone being allowed to say everything they want so I'd rather go down swinging at least this one time and try to throw the community the idea of a system they can uphold themselves.

The community has been able to handle these subjects better, but it went from an F to D in terms of progress so sadly I agree here. I agree and I doubt people will ever reach a point to properly discuss this, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Kind of sad as I know people like Chase really do love to debate and discuss stuff and generally do a good job.

[mde2001]

Okay, before everyone gets too excited about a debate subforum, this has been brought up a ridiculously large number of times and it has been decided its really not a good idea. I'm not saying there is an 100% chance it will never happen but the chances are incredibly minimal.

Starting a petition would also be pretty useless. We don't have to do things just because people want them to be frank. If you feel passionately about this I'm sure we'd all prefer to see a well reasoned argument as to why you think it is a good idea than you trying to force it down our throats with some form of petition. Getting peoples opinions on a matter is one thing, but starting a petition would frankly only hurt your cause.

Anyway, fantastic work on this thread Kuro. You've once again proven how level headed and rational you are so good on you for that! This is a great guide and hopefully people will get something out of reading it.

[Kurotsune]

Okay, before everyone gets too excited about a debate subforum, this has been brought up a ridiculously large number of times and it has been decided its really not a good idea. I'm not saying there is an 100% chance it will never happen but the chances are incredibly minimal.

Starting a petition would also be pretty useless. We don't have to do things just because people want them to be frank. If you feel passionately about this I'm sure we'd all prefer to see a well reasoned argument as to why you think it is a good idea than you trying to force it down our throats with some form of petition. Getting peoples opinions on a matter is one thing, but starting a petition would frankly only hurt your cause.

Anyway, fantastic work on this thread Kuro. You've once again proven how level headed and rational you are so good on you for that! This is a great guide and hopefully people will get something out of reading it.

I think a petition - Although I personally have no interest in making the idea happen on my own, as I've made abundantly clear that this will be my one and only contribution to this subject matter - would help if paired with sensible arguments on why the forum should exist.

At the end of the day it's not "forcing it down your throats" insomuch as it is a show of hands of how many people would actually care about such a thing.

As I've mentioned in my first post I've been aware of the debate hall not being agreed upon since day one, but I was also told the biggest reason this would be the case was because it's the belief that the forum would be inactive.

If there are a lot of people saying they want that forum to exist, that means this reason definitely is no longer valid - Or, at least that the subject is worth being discussed with more care.

But then, I'd expect some pretty good arguments to follow this show of hands - After all, what'd be the point of a debate hall if its denizens weren't good at debating to begin with?

[HughJ]

I've been weighing the idea of the subforum in my head for a while and I think we just need to keep from telescoping the past few days in magnitude. A large amount of the debate threads Hunter and others have recently constructed centered on politics and the political race, which just recently "ended" - those are naturally going to be more heated and active than even later political threads centered on Trump's presidency, or more general subjects like the ethics of the death penalty.

Maybe we should give the subject a week or so before beginning a petition so people don't sign up for something they have no intention of actually taking interest in.

Personally, I'm still interested in a debate hall if there were to be a lot of threads like the Philosopher's Gazebo (although that's much more of a constructive, informative symposium revolving around Viri's own convictions and thoughts) because they provide a nicer backdrop to the occasional hot topic.

[NickCrash]

Since the subject in hand has been discussed among the staff of the website before, I'm certain they would not mind listing the rest of the reasons they decided against the idea. Simply providing a "NO" as an answer is hardly satisfying. We are speaking of a debate subforum after all, in which extensive arguments are meant to be the main focus in projecting a viewpoint and convincing other people.

It is not a matter of "shoving it down one's throat", as it constitutes an expansion on the already existing subforums and not one that everyone must follow. One is not obligated to monitor it closely, and as Kuro said, the moderation of such threads could be done by their creator or a local mod.

If the main problem would be low 'traffic' then we could propose an experimental subforum, similar to the (now dead) Sports one. The steps are simple: Create the subforum with a specific set of rules (possibly more lax than usual, since heated arguments are bound to happen), check its activity at regular intervals, and decide to let it continue or terminate it.

Currently the number of people who actively debate on the site is small, yet this should not be a demotivation. Most people, probably due to their young age, are unsure of themselves or uncomfortable with voicing their opinions or struggle projecting them in a way that's not tiring for other readers. As of now, the debates are usually political, but that needs not be the norm, as multiple everyday subjects with varying degrees of importance can be discussed. That of course serves as an expansion to the original debate subjects, so if the decision is made and the subforum gets created, it's up to those who make the rules/guidelines what subjects fall under the subforum as pure debate.

That said, it's positive for the site to have this serve as a reminder for some of the basics about debating. Unfortunately having a logical fallacy in one's argument is usually unavoidable, but the rule of 'empathy' can explain where the person making the fallacy is coming from. So even if the argument itself is weak, the mere use of the fallacy helps understand the debater's mind, so we shouldn't be that strict when we spot it (heck due to not always finding the proper words I end up creating fallacies). I believe this is the apropriate place to also discuss about the rules such a subforum would have and how different they would be compared to the others, based on the nature of the subforum.