Veepstakes thoughts...

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

I think reasonably intelligent people can think through why they feel a certain way about an issue and be able to communicate 1)their opinion and 2)at least the rudimentary reasons they came to that conclusion. That is probably the most basic defense of an opinion and I don't think it's beyond the normal person.

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. However, in the instance where Angie, Tara & I were trying to encourage Deb (and the others who lurk for fear of getting trampled) to feel free to pipe in and share, the suggestion that if one doesn't adaquately defend their position means they should admit they're wrong seemed harsh to me. That is why I said "inability (or lack of desire to)".

[Vanquisher]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

I think reasonably intelligent people can think through why they feel a certain way about an issue and be able to communicate 1)their opinion and 2)at least the rudimentary reasons they came to that conclusion. That is probably the most basic defense of an opinion and I don't think it's beyond the normal person.

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. However, in the instance where Angie, Tara & I were trying to encourage Deb (and the others who lurk for fear of getting trampled) to feel free to pipe in and share, the suggestion that if one doesn't adaquately defend their position means they should admit they're wrong seemed harsh to me. That is why I said "inability (or lack of desire to)".

I agree with Jenn P for the most part.

However, I think it is okay to have an opinion without qualifying it. Period. For example, I think ice cream is good! Reason: It just is!!! Who gives a flying crap what my reasons are for my conclusion. They are my reasons, whether they are well-informed, rational, or meet anyone elses strict guidelines for scruitiny doesn't matter. What matters is that I have an opinion at all, and because I am human, because I am worthy, because I am awesome enough to have snagged myself a dawkter ( )my opinion is valid.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

Rapunzel is an award winning ex-debate team person. (*ahem* ..... Not Fair!!) I always try to remember that her standards of evidence are high. I personally love to watch PrincessFiona and Rapunzel get in to a knockdown drag out debate with lots of evidence, but I do see that not everyone can participate at that level. (For example, moi!) I think that we can't expect everyone to maintain that standard. This is a message board. We will all try to back up our opinions and statements, but we will often fail. Honestly, I think that it is just as interesting to discuss unsupported deeply held beliefs; often, that's what drives our voting and actions in daily life. Logical? No. I'm not sure that people can express why they have arrived at an opinion in many debates but there they are, none-the-less, and it is still interesting to read.

Let's just try to keep it friendly in here, OK? Now....back to those VP choices! (Forthcoming any moment, right??) Who's this Texan dark horse candidate they've mentioned in Obama's list?

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

I think reasonably intelligent people can think through why they feel a certain way about an issue and be able to communicate 1)their opinion and 2)at least the rudimentary reasons they came to that conclusion. That is probably the most basic defense of an opinion and I don't think it's beyond the normal person.

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. However, in the instance where Angie, Tara & I were trying to encourage Deb (and the others who lurk for fear of getting trampled) to feel free to pipe in and share, the suggestion that if one doesn't adaquately defend their position means they should admit they're wrong seemed harsh to me. That is why I said "inability (or lack of desire to)".

Well, we have the definition of adequately here.

I define adequately as being able to 1)state your opinion and 2) give rudimentary reasons behind that conclusion (rudimentary being very, very basic - such as "this is my observation" or "I had this experience"). So, yeah, if you can't even do that then why hold an opinion at all? What's the point of stating an opinion if you don't even know what you believe or even a very, very basic reason as to why you believe it? (And, per the other thread, yes, I do believe that spiritual and/or religious beliefs qualify as a reason for holding an opinion).

So, it seems harsh to you to expect someone to be able to just do those very basic things if they post in a debate forum? Really?

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

What matters is that I have an opinion at all, and because I am human, because I am worthy, because I am awesome enough to have snagged myself a dawkter ( )my opinion is valid.

OK, that last part had me laugh so hard that I have to say "I'm awesome enough to have snagged myself a dawkter" is a valid justification for any opinion - period.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

Rapunzel is an award winning ex-debate team person. (*ahem* ..... Not Fair!!)

I am too, FYI. Maybe minimal award winning ( ), but I was a debater all through high school, and I'm still involved in the local league here. (And my husband was a state champion, so I need to keep up at home!)

I say that not to brag, but to point out that some of us who go at this at length maybe are a bit too accustomed to doing so, and that's our problem, not yours.

I think that what we may have here as well is a misunderstanding of the word debate.

When you debate something you DO argue it - having reasons to back up an opinion.

It's not the "opinions" or "editorials" forum. If you want to change it to that I completely understand. But, debate means that you, well, debate. And, I don't think any of us should get into trouble for debating in the debate forum. That's just silly.

Edited to add: And, as oceanchild knows debate is actually a sport. You can't tell everyone to go play football but then say, "Oh, wait, playing football is just pushing each other on the swings." It's not the same thing. You can make the football game easier by playing tag football. But, it's still football - not playing on the swings.

BTW - Princess Fiona can kick my butt when it comes to debate.

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

As Angie said - this is a message board - . And as we've all acknowledged in the past, the "Debate" forum is one where subjects often get "dumped" for lack of a better place to put it. So yes, I think there are times where a subject may be here for discussion, but may not have a right/left side to it, or right/wrong kind of answer.

My issue here is with the idea that posters need to feel ready to live up to someone else's standards of discussion before they're welcome to post in this forum without a fear of being mocked, or "ready to admit they're wrong". How many times have we had someone meekly step in, and then bow out - usually with an apology?? It just doesn't sit right with me.

[spotty_dog]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

It's not the "opinions" or "editorials" forum.

Well, but maybe it should be. I've always taken "Debate Forum" to be shorthand for "Place where discussions go that might incite inflamed response." Not "Place where one practices the finely honed art of debate." I understand that it's in your nature to roundly put someone in their place with a one-two punch of neatly categorized, bulletproof logic. But I think it's fair to observe that this is not a high school debate competition, it's a community of people who feel comfortable enough with each other to share opinions on even potentially inflammatory subjects. I'd like to see people walking away the richer for having experienced a broad range of perspectives, not singed by a vigorous rebuttal that hounds them into admitting defeat.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

I'm only saying that people have different standards for how much time and energy they want to commit to an internet message board. I was explaining mine, and maybe yours, but I think you've already explained your own.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was extrapolating on what you said.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

FYI - I think the Debate forum was formed to give members a place to disagree and discuss issues in a non-supportive fashion. I think "Debate" was used as a title more because things stated by members there in where considered "debatable" and not representative of the goals of the site. The intention was not to spur actual debates. The debates were happening in other areas of the site and upsetting members -- so the Debate forum gave members that wanted to discuss subjects that could cause friction a place to talk more openly. The disclaimer was parked above the forum later because upset still resulted. *sigh* I do think that members that have more experience in debate or law have a thicker skin than the rest of us. So....oceanchild.....I have to add you to my list of Debate forum sharks!!

I don't think you have to "debate" on par with a debate team to post in here. That's too high of a standard. I don't think that is the intention of the site managers. I can check....of course...this is just one opinion. Still, when this has been discussed, no one has ever commented that people in the Debate Forum need to present more facts. Mostly, the talk is about trying to keep the discussion going without anyone feeling personally attacked or that their opinion is not valued. That can get tricky around elections. I think last presidental election, this forum was a hotbed of activity and then completely dead for months afterwards. Some feelings were hurt. It happens. :huh: All we say is be kind. We are all friends here.

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

I agree with all of that, Angie. My recollection of the history is the same as yours.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

It's not the "opinions" or "editorials" forum.

Well, but maybe it should be. I've always taken "Debate Forum" to be shorthand for "Place where discussions go that might incite inflamed response." Not "Place where one practices the finely honed art of debate." I understand that it's in your nature to roundly put someone in their place with a one-two punch of neatly categorized, bulletproof logic. But I think it's fair to observe that this is not a high school debate competition, it's a community of people who feel comfortable enough with each other to share opinions on even potentially inflammatory subjects. I'd like to see people walking away the richer for having experienced a broad range of perspectives, not singed by a vigorous rebuttal that hounds them into admitting defeat.

Then, I think for purposes of clarification it should be labeled the "opinions" forum. Because what you are describing is not debating. You want something emotional. Whereas I tend to lay my emotions (and I try to even with the things that are more emotional to me) aside in this area because that is what you have to do with potentially inflammatory material. In the rare instances where I know I cannot lay emotions aside I avoid debating those issues. Because, I understand what debate is. If you don't like your opinions questioned then they should not be in a "debate" forum.

But, you have made a good case for this being too emotional a place for debating - where this should simply be an opinions forum and called such.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

As Angie said - this is a message board - . And as we've all acknowledged in the past, the "Debate" forum is one where subjects often get "dumped" for lack of a better place to put it. So yes, I think there are times where a subject may be here for discussion, but may not have a right/left side to it, or right/wrong kind of answer.

My issue here is with the idea that posters need to feel ready to live up to someone else's standards of discussion before they're welcome to post in this forum without a fear of being mocked, or "ready to admit they're wrong". How many times have we had someone meekly step in, and then bow out - usually with an apology?? It just doesn't sit right with me.

Jane, you seem to be in agreement with spotty dog. Perhaps this should be changed from a forum entitled "Debates" to one entitled "Opinions". Debating involves supporting opinions. Opinions are just that - opinions. Which do you prefer - sharing of opinions or sharing of opinions and then supporting those opinions? I don't care either way. But, the site needs to adequately label its forums and explain their purposes so as to avoid these types of misunderstandings.

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

I'd like to see people walking away the richer for having experienced a broad range of perspectives, not singed by a vigorous rebuttal that hounds them into admitting defeat.

BTW, my feelings aren't hurt by any of this. I'm just highly embarrassed that it all started with my posts.

I like the debates forum because I can hear several points of view. It's informative, especially when it comes to politics, in my case.

I think it's commonly understood that on a message board people's opinions are respected, not challenged. Perhaps "debates" is a confusing term for some people (indicating the need to challenge like on a debate team), but I think most people understand that the basic rules of kindness, support, and respect for others' opinions still apply, just as they would in other areas of a message board. :huh:

[spotty_dog]

Re: Veepstakes thoughts...

But, you have made a good case for this being too emotional a place for debating - where this should simply be an opinions forum and called such.

Unfortunately, even though I completely understand the thrill of delivering a well-supported counterpoint, "debating" in an environment like this takes a totally different skillset than does academic debate. It's a careful balance between debating the subject and respecting the real, sensitive individual on the other side of the screen, someone who might not be as good as you are at divorcing him- or herself from the matter being discussed. I think that stating unopposable "because that's what I think" opinions and leaving it at that would be boring. But not every discussion has to have a "winner" either. This forum could be a more approachable place -- and therefore enriched by more people and more perspectives -- if everybody thought of it more as a lively conversation over a cup of coffee than as vehement arguing modulated by the rules of debate. And what's more, hurt feelings would be less likely to carry over and taint the conversation elsewhere on the site.

I'm sure you're already spread thin with your limited internet time, but maybe there's a political site or other appropriate forum where you could really let loose? I know you'd miss the occasional rounds of really witty repartee if you felt that you had to hold back here in the future.