I thought it might be interesting to discuss how one goes about engaging in a constructive debate in an Internet forum such as this one.

I think that a constructive debate involves several things:

1. All participants must be willing to be polite - you don't have to respect the other participants but you must register that disagreement politely.

2. All participants must be willing and able to represent each other's positions fairly, to the satisfaction of whoever originally presented that particular position.

3. All participants must be willing to use logic and facts instead of emotional appeals and rhetoric. Any use of symbolic logic to evaluate arguments must include a list of operators, variables, constants, and a legend of symbols used to represent these components.

4. All participants must be willing to explain their position and answer questions about that position. That includes backing up any 'facts' with reference materials, either links or bibliographical information.

that means virtually every one here doesn't qualify.

I'm getting tired of the sheer idiocy that seems to permeate this place.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

I try to do that, but if someone gets rude, I tend to get equally rude back. Do you think these forums would be better if, rather than responding to rudeness, one should abandon the thread as soon as his opponent gets rude?

Sometimes the original presentor is hard to satisfy. If person #2 can't represent person #1's position to his/her satisfaction, person #2 shouldn't automatically be presumed guilty.

Agreed, but who decides what is logical and what is emotional?

That's one of the biggest problems here IMO. So many here criticize, without explaining their own position.

__________________
When church and state are separated, atheism and state are combined.

No, I think that these forums would be better if people responded to rudeness with politeness. After all, why lower yourself to their level? Better to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than kill a thread with a flame-war.
Since all participants must be fair and honest about each other's posts, I have difficulty seeing how one participant cannot represent another's position to that other's satisfaction. Once thing I've noticed is that people are lazy, after all this is entertainment, and aren't willing to do the work necessary to establish consensus and common ground. If both people are willing to help each other understand, and do the work that's involved, then satisfaction may be eventually achieved.

I think that's one of the reasons that we see so many repetitive threads, because people aren't willing to go through a complete process of analysis - to keep going back looking for further articulation and explanation of an idea.

The participants reach an agreement on it. It should be easy to agree on because logic is about how information relates to other information and emotion is how you feel about information. Logical key-words include "or", "not", "and", "if/then", "if and only if", "therefore", etc.


An example:

Logical: If I have a apple, and apples are fruit, then I have a fruit.

Emotional: Apples make me happy.

Because if you're too lazy to use clear english, we're too lazy to read it:

1. Use a spell-checker.

2. Use a grammar-checker.

3. Avoid colloquialisms.

4. Avoid metaphors.

5. Avoid 'leet-speak'

6. Use standard essay structure for long posts.

Hey, I agree with all of that. What happens too often is that the serious debaters let the rhetorical ones take over the thread. Fore ya know it, there you are in the middle of friggin fight about who did what, when, instead of on topic and discussing the issue. I am as guilty as the next man, but it doesn't solve anything. Spewing words is an easy habit to get into.

__________________
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names. "
- John F. Kennedy

Number 3 is the most broken rule, with 4 and 1 being close seconds,

__________________
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?" - Chris Rock

The one main thing that I see a lot is lol. Do people think that is acceptable to use? When you start substituting u for you and r for are you just look stupid, but everyone seems to understand and use lol frequently.

__________________
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?" - Chris Rock

Personally I can't stand it when someone uses "lol". It's usually used derisively when politeness suggests that leaving it out and responding politely is in order. Personally I'm surprised at this thread. The author apparently didn't read the FAQ.

__________________
"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit." - Aristotle

Something I've noticed that interferes with a good debate is what I'll call the 'quoting talking points' problem.

The problem is that when someone posts other people reply to each individual point in the post instead of answering the whole post with a coherent reply.

Apparently the idea is to keep a track of the points at issue, but really it just bogs down into taking things out of context.

__________________
"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit." - Aristotle

the biggest problem with internet debating is no one is willing to yield a point. with a moderator, this can be accomplished; without one, it just degenerate into ever lengthening tangents because people refuse to admit they are wrong.

I think that's only a problem where posters have failed to establish standards of argument, and a common set of true propositions or predicates. It's like finding the angles of a triangle - you need at least two known angles to figure out the unknown one.

__________________
"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit." - Aristotle

such are rarely able to be established as debates are over beliefs vs facts, or if facts, the significance of those facts.

Sure, but even in debates about facts, truth, and significance there's plenty of opportunity to establish common ground with regard to auxiliary facts and methodology. I don't think that people ever need to 'agree to disagree' unless they're unable - due to time constraints - or uninterested in pursuing a discussion.

__________________
"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit." - Aristotle

You should try the Open Jam at Harmony-Central... a place where "f**k you" is considered polite...

- Hey, this forum has a language censor thing! For the first time in my life I think that's a good idea.