Tweet
OR: I'm in the minority, and people are ganging up on me!
WARNING: If you think I'm talking about you in this rant, get over yourself.
I don't think I'm wrong in saying this is a debate forum, so let's lay down some definitions.
Debate: A process by which people attempt to prove the validity of their point, or disprove the validity of the opposing view point.
Forum: A place for multiple people to congregate and discuss different topics, possibly with a theme.
However, people seem to have difficulties grasping the idea of proving their point, and that they may have to defend their point to multiple people. If you happen to have an unpopular opinion, people are not ganging up on you by disagreeing with you and pointing out flaws in your argument. You are not being disrespected by people pointing out flaws in your argument, and sarcasm, humour, and pointed comments are acceptable methods to do so, so long as they're directed to your argument rather than your personage.
No one is obligated to agree with your position. If you come to a point where you are no longer able to defend your position, but aren't able to admit that, it is not unacceptable for people to point out that "It's my opinion" isn't a valid defence. You are free to have an opinion. You are free to have an irrational opinion even. What you are not allowed to do is bitch about people disagreeing with your opinion once you've voiced it. If you are truly so hurt by being in the minority, stop posting in that thread. Having your opinion disputed is not being discriminated against. The world discriminates against me. I’m a left-handed, overweight male in excess of 6’2”. The world simply does not accommodate me. Doors open the wrong way, scissors are awkward, rooms are backwards. Signs are too low, seats in vehicles don’t have enough leg room, chairs are too narrow. The list is fairly extensive. But I don’t bitch about it. I know I’m outside the norm, so I soldier on. I accommodate myself to life. If I can do that, you can handle having an unpopular opinion. If you can’t, you’re probably on the wrong site. Bloody well defend your statements, or make clear that they’re indefensible, but saying “I’m right because I’m right,” or any variant thereof not only instantly makes you actually wrong, it makes you a self-righteous dumbass. If your only point of support is something which defines itself as correct and above scrutiny, then you’re not debating. And lest anyone become hung up on the fact that some arguments naturally cannot have evidence, proof and support can and do mean more than being able to point to physicalities. A well-constructed logical argument can serve as proof. What’s a well-constructed argument? One where the points of logic used are defensible as not being objectively incorrect. If you can provide a solid chain of reasoning, that works. But if you at any point say “that’s just how it is,” you may want to double-check that you’re having the same conversation. Seriously. If that is how it is, aka self-evident, the other person should have realized that. If he or she didn’t, ascertain why.
Furthermore, make at least a half-assed effort to understand why you're in the minority. Is everyone else arguing justice while you're arguing vengeance? Are you arguing morality while everyone else is debating scientific principles? Are you using a different definition of a word than everyone else? If there's a difference in what you're talking about, and what the other people are talking about, of course there's going to be conflict. Try and be part of the same conversation.
More, when you run out of arguments, please don't start using fallacies. I'm not just talking ad hominem. I'm talking about the whole gamut. If people are talking about a specific case, don't talk about generalities. If people are talking about a general area of something, don't pull out the most hyper-specific case and then point out that people are stupid for saying one thing when this one-in-a-million case would be an exception, unless you are using it to demonstrate an aspect of your argument, but be prepared to acknowledge it's a rare case.
Obviously we're not all classically trained sophists, so we're going to slip. That's fine. Just acknowledge that slip if someone points it out.
Another thing, LEARN TO PARSE A QUESTION. Don't just fire off an answer. Take a few minutes if you have to, but try and figure out what someone's actually asking. Then, after you've answered, take a step back and see if you actually answered that question. This will solve a lot of the whole "You didn't actually answer the question" issues. Don't answer what you wish they'd ask. Don't answer the question you can answer. If you're unsure what the question is, try and address that in your response. Something like "If I understand what you're asking is this, in which case, my answer is thus." Nothing pisses off a debater like someone who seems to be deliberately avoiding the point you were trying to make. If you cannot answer a point you don't automatically lose if you say "I cannot address that at this time." Just say "I can't answer that to your satisfaction," possibly with the reason why. Not everyone knows everything. You can admit ignorance. You may not have the specialized knowledge necessary to answer a question. Maybe you're not a legal expert. Maybe you don’t know the physics behind constructing a suspension bridge. That’s fine. Pony up, admit you’re not an expert, and plunge forward on offering a lay-opinion. If someone knows something better, everyone’s learned something.
Sometimes, someone is going to disagree with you just for the sake of disagreeing with you. Some people are simply contrarians. If you suspect you’re debating someone who’s simply being contrary, and not making an effort to make a point of their own, you are allowed to challenge them by saying “Alright, so what’s your take?” If you put the burden on them for a change, you might see them give up. But by the same token, not everyone who disagrees with you is doing it just to be contrary. Even if they don’t actually support the position they’ve taken, they still might have a point they’re trying to get across. Devil’s Advocates aren’t trolls or flamers. They’re trying to either start an honest-to-god debate. One where someone won’t get pissy just because they aren’t being agreed with. If you’re emotionally invested in your argument, don’t. Your bias will show. You will be called on your bias. If you are called on your bias, do not get pissy. Acknowledge that you have a bias, and then either try to mitigate it, or frame your future comments in such a fashion that gives a nod to this. If you had a friend that was killed in a freak ice cream incident, and someone’s made a thread about how ice cream should be in all schools, you’ll earn a lot of points if you say up front, “My friend was killed in an ice cream accident, so I don’t think that ice cream should be in schools.” Anyone who simply dismisses you after that wasn’t in for a real debate anyways. But keep in mind, you’ll still need to actually try to do some convincing, if you want to stay in the argument. Having a tragedy in your past is not an instant win card.
If someone says something that can be taken one of two ways, and one of those ways is insulting, the person probably meant it the other. It doesn’t hurt to point out the possibly offensive nature of their comment, but for FUCK’S sake, don’t go overboard. Do not return the insults, do not fly in to a tizzy about being maligned. Just say “Hey, what you wrote could be interpreted this way, you may want to watch that in the future. I’ll assume you meant it this second way, which is not insulting, and proceed on that. “ It makes you look like the bigger person if they DID mean to insult you. Hey, that’s kinda like the “if you’re not sure what the question is, try and clarify it” tip, isn’t it? Keep in mind that if it is an insult, that’s what the mods are here for. To keep it from getting personal. We’re not here to mediate. We’re here because dammit, we wanna have us a logic fight. We’re going to get down in to it too. Says right in the rules. “Moderators are not neutral parties.” We enforce the rules as presented, but we have our opinions, and no reason to be shy about stating it. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to use our “modly powers” to rig the debate, or that we’ll disregard the rules. When it comes to those rules, we ARE impartial. However, we also reserve the right to mercilessly mock your butt for reporting someone for not agreeing with you.
Continuing in the vein of “if you’re unsure, don’t assume,” make it easier for other people. Be precise. If you mean something specific, use that word. Don’t swap it around with another word that you consider equivalent. Cars are not the same as trucks, for instance. If you’re using a word how it normally would not be used, state flat out that you’re using “bad” to mean “action of no redeeming value,” rather than “action of negative value,” for example. If someone responds, and doesn’t understand, then clarify. Don’t jump on their misunderstanding. It’s all part of making sure everyone’s having the same conversation. What’s the point in responding to something when it’s not necessarily what they would have said if they had actually known what you really meant? It’s a tangent with no value.
Cont. Next Post.
WARNING: If you think I'm talking about you in this rant, get over yourself.
I don't think I'm wrong in saying this is a debate forum, so let's lay down some definitions.
Debate: A process by which people attempt to prove the validity of their point, or disprove the validity of the opposing view point.
Forum: A place for multiple people to congregate and discuss different topics, possibly with a theme.
However, people seem to have difficulties grasping the idea of proving their point, and that they may have to defend their point to multiple people. If you happen to have an unpopular opinion, people are not ganging up on you by disagreeing with you and pointing out flaws in your argument. You are not being disrespected by people pointing out flaws in your argument, and sarcasm, humour, and pointed comments are acceptable methods to do so, so long as they're directed to your argument rather than your personage.
No one is obligated to agree with your position. If you come to a point where you are no longer able to defend your position, but aren't able to admit that, it is not unacceptable for people to point out that "It's my opinion" isn't a valid defence. You are free to have an opinion. You are free to have an irrational opinion even. What you are not allowed to do is bitch about people disagreeing with your opinion once you've voiced it. If you are truly so hurt by being in the minority, stop posting in that thread. Having your opinion disputed is not being discriminated against. The world discriminates against me. I’m a left-handed, overweight male in excess of 6’2”. The world simply does not accommodate me. Doors open the wrong way, scissors are awkward, rooms are backwards. Signs are too low, seats in vehicles don’t have enough leg room, chairs are too narrow. The list is fairly extensive. But I don’t bitch about it. I know I’m outside the norm, so I soldier on. I accommodate myself to life. If I can do that, you can handle having an unpopular opinion. If you can’t, you’re probably on the wrong site. Bloody well defend your statements, or make clear that they’re indefensible, but saying “I’m right because I’m right,” or any variant thereof not only instantly makes you actually wrong, it makes you a self-righteous dumbass. If your only point of support is something which defines itself as correct and above scrutiny, then you’re not debating. And lest anyone become hung up on the fact that some arguments naturally cannot have evidence, proof and support can and do mean more than being able to point to physicalities. A well-constructed logical argument can serve as proof. What’s a well-constructed argument? One where the points of logic used are defensible as not being objectively incorrect. If you can provide a solid chain of reasoning, that works. But if you at any point say “that’s just how it is,” you may want to double-check that you’re having the same conversation. Seriously. If that is how it is, aka self-evident, the other person should have realized that. If he or she didn’t, ascertain why.
Furthermore, make at least a half-assed effort to understand why you're in the minority. Is everyone else arguing justice while you're arguing vengeance? Are you arguing morality while everyone else is debating scientific principles? Are you using a different definition of a word than everyone else? If there's a difference in what you're talking about, and what the other people are talking about, of course there's going to be conflict. Try and be part of the same conversation.
More, when you run out of arguments, please don't start using fallacies. I'm not just talking ad hominem. I'm talking about the whole gamut. If people are talking about a specific case, don't talk about generalities. If people are talking about a general area of something, don't pull out the most hyper-specific case and then point out that people are stupid for saying one thing when this one-in-a-million case would be an exception, unless you are using it to demonstrate an aspect of your argument, but be prepared to acknowledge it's a rare case.
Obviously we're not all classically trained sophists, so we're going to slip. That's fine. Just acknowledge that slip if someone points it out.
Another thing, LEARN TO PARSE A QUESTION. Don't just fire off an answer. Take a few minutes if you have to, but try and figure out what someone's actually asking. Then, after you've answered, take a step back and see if you actually answered that question. This will solve a lot of the whole "You didn't actually answer the question" issues. Don't answer what you wish they'd ask. Don't answer the question you can answer. If you're unsure what the question is, try and address that in your response. Something like "If I understand what you're asking is this, in which case, my answer is thus." Nothing pisses off a debater like someone who seems to be deliberately avoiding the point you were trying to make. If you cannot answer a point you don't automatically lose if you say "I cannot address that at this time." Just say "I can't answer that to your satisfaction," possibly with the reason why. Not everyone knows everything. You can admit ignorance. You may not have the specialized knowledge necessary to answer a question. Maybe you're not a legal expert. Maybe you don’t know the physics behind constructing a suspension bridge. That’s fine. Pony up, admit you’re not an expert, and plunge forward on offering a lay-opinion. If someone knows something better, everyone’s learned something.
Sometimes, someone is going to disagree with you just for the sake of disagreeing with you. Some people are simply contrarians. If you suspect you’re debating someone who’s simply being contrary, and not making an effort to make a point of their own, you are allowed to challenge them by saying “Alright, so what’s your take?” If you put the burden on them for a change, you might see them give up. But by the same token, not everyone who disagrees with you is doing it just to be contrary. Even if they don’t actually support the position they’ve taken, they still might have a point they’re trying to get across. Devil’s Advocates aren’t trolls or flamers. They’re trying to either start an honest-to-god debate. One where someone won’t get pissy just because they aren’t being agreed with. If you’re emotionally invested in your argument, don’t. Your bias will show. You will be called on your bias. If you are called on your bias, do not get pissy. Acknowledge that you have a bias, and then either try to mitigate it, or frame your future comments in such a fashion that gives a nod to this. If you had a friend that was killed in a freak ice cream incident, and someone’s made a thread about how ice cream should be in all schools, you’ll earn a lot of points if you say up front, “My friend was killed in an ice cream accident, so I don’t think that ice cream should be in schools.” Anyone who simply dismisses you after that wasn’t in for a real debate anyways. But keep in mind, you’ll still need to actually try to do some convincing, if you want to stay in the argument. Having a tragedy in your past is not an instant win card.
If someone says something that can be taken one of two ways, and one of those ways is insulting, the person probably meant it the other. It doesn’t hurt to point out the possibly offensive nature of their comment, but for FUCK’S sake, don’t go overboard. Do not return the insults, do not fly in to a tizzy about being maligned. Just say “Hey, what you wrote could be interpreted this way, you may want to watch that in the future. I’ll assume you meant it this second way, which is not insulting, and proceed on that. “ It makes you look like the bigger person if they DID mean to insult you. Hey, that’s kinda like the “if you’re not sure what the question is, try and clarify it” tip, isn’t it? Keep in mind that if it is an insult, that’s what the mods are here for. To keep it from getting personal. We’re not here to mediate. We’re here because dammit, we wanna have us a logic fight. We’re going to get down in to it too. Says right in the rules. “Moderators are not neutral parties.” We enforce the rules as presented, but we have our opinions, and no reason to be shy about stating it. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to use our “modly powers” to rig the debate, or that we’ll disregard the rules. When it comes to those rules, we ARE impartial. However, we also reserve the right to mercilessly mock your butt for reporting someone for not agreeing with you.
Continuing in the vein of “if you’re unsure, don’t assume,” make it easier for other people. Be precise. If you mean something specific, use that word. Don’t swap it around with another word that you consider equivalent. Cars are not the same as trucks, for instance. If you’re using a word how it normally would not be used, state flat out that you’re using “bad” to mean “action of no redeeming value,” rather than “action of negative value,” for example. If someone responds, and doesn’t understand, then clarify. Don’t jump on their misunderstanding. It’s all part of making sure everyone’s having the same conversation. What’s the point in responding to something when it’s not necessarily what they would have said if they had actually known what you really meant? It’s a tangent with no value.
Cont. Next Post.
I was not aware of that.......
Comment