Rules of Debate

[Valeoz]

I was looking through the many arguments on this forum I noticed that there are many disorganized arguments that sooner or later lead to a closure. There is exactly only a small minority that I have seen to even take seriously.

Reasons being: Immature comments, no supporting evidence, disrespect of opinion, etc.

This above does not lead to a good clean discussion.

I would like for the regulars in WoW to consider rules for debate. It would make debates more interesting and definitely more organized, but at the same time not losing the fun of discussion.

This should also help set a written system of WoW moderators for a closure and understanding for other members by referencing the rules.

I have started with five simple rules, much taken from www.evcforum.net, that I have emphasized on.

1) Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

2) Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach." Insults or attacks against individuals or groups should lead to disciplinary warnings being issued and possibly to suspension of posting privileges if those warning go unheeded.

3) Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

4) Do not post images or graphics without some clear supporting text discussion and a minimum description of the image content and size. Image content must be specifically on topic with the original subject of the discussion. Posts with image trolls and other image spam and deliberate distractions will be removed in their entirety at the discretion of the moderators.

5) Avoid any form of misrepresentation. Do not state that something is fact or a well known fact just because you read it in a message board, on a web site, or any other location .

These rules are completely open for discussion.

Please consider!

:thumb:

 

[Amara]

I certainly agree, especially with number 2 which is already mentioned in the poster guidelines where is calls for respectful debates and avoidance of insulting with negative intent. It is the nature of WoW that there will be differences of opinion but that does not give people the right to belittle others for it. It is supposed to be constructive and thought provoking in here, we should all try and post with maturity and respect or else this forum need not exist.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Although it still leaves things pretty ambiguous (which isn't necessarily bad for a message forum), I pretty much like the rules. Except for that bullshit about respect.

 

[Sebastian]

why is that bullshit?

 

[AmerikazMost]

Degradation and disrespect give a nice character to debate.

 

[Eric]

I'm going to call someone a moron if they have made moronic claims. Persons who make political opinions that are clearly based on propaganda or are on the verge of conspiracy are going to be called out. Period.

Also, a rule that needs to be added to this is spelling. Sentence structure is one things but in the name of debate, please learn how to spell.

EDIT: I just saw this..

Degradation and disrespect give a nice character to debate.

Agreed!

 

[I like to bore people]

Full http://kwesthues.com/regiftedxmas12.html

Modern Discourse


Following are ten key characteristics of modern discourse, what many professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, study and argue in the academy:

• "personal detachment from the issues under discussion," the separation of participants' personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of debate;

• values on "confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of one’s feelings, a thick skin and high tolerance for your own and others’ discomfort";

• suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction;

• illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons;

• epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and distributist G. K. Chesterton;

• playfulness is legitimate: one can play devil’s advocate, speak tongue in cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions;

• "scathing satire and sharp criticism" are also legitimate;

• the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic;

• participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and produce better arguments;

• the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to emerge from the conversation as a whole.

Postmodern Discourse

Over the past half century, a competing mode of discourse, the one I call postmodern, has become steadily more entrenched in academe.

• "persons and positions are ordinarily closely related," with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;

• "sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values";

• priority on "cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus";

• "seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge," in the eyes of proponents of modern discourse;

• tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as "vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus";

• is oriented to " the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum";

• lacking "means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation," it will "typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition";

• "will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.";

• has a more feminine flavour, as opposed to the more masculine flavour of modern discourse;

• results in "stale monologues" and contexts that "seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers."

 

[Tha Massive Bell]

Up

edit

in other words, this is Sparta. I will fuck your shit up.