Rules of Debate

Post Reply New Topic

How many people here actually try to follow rules of debate, not necessarily these specifically, but some form of explicit rules?

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-Eng ... dvice.html

Yes, I follow all of them all of the time.

Rule three "3. Refrain from saying you are wrong. " is phrased badly. At first I took it to mean "Never say 'I am wrong'. Maybe writing it as "Never tell someone they are wrong" would be better.

Good rules though.

PS: I did not write these rules. If you care to see the original format, follow the link I posted under the the rules.

I agree that there should probably be quotations around the words you are wrong. Otherwise, the rule about not saying it doesn't make much sense.

I must admit I failed to follow all those rules, and I don't think I have been polite, especially when it seems that I make fun of some of the posts which obviously I disagree.

Then I hope I won't lose friends or sympathy from some people I know, for this. I actually like Iamnotaparakeet, but these threads and posts might make things too tense for people to get along.

Last edited by greenblue on 23 Nov 2007, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Something I see here is name calling and insults made with one another, for disagreeing I suppose.

I also noticed that arrogance can be an aspie trait, so I suppose that is understandable, I also know that lots of people here avoid this forum, probably a good choice.

I don't follow these rules yet, but I thought I should start trying. It seems like I might start getting more out of all this if I did. I wanted to find out if anyone else on WP was already trying to follow an explicit set of debate rules.

I think that Aspies tend to see things in a very clear cut way and therefore are more sure of the correctness of their beliefs than NTs are. In turn, frustration at not being agreed with rises much more easily, which leads to the name calling. The arrogance is, I think, a defensive move in most cases, and can be loosely identified as "the more sure about my opinion I appear, the harder it is to question".

I think #5 will be something that people will have a huge problem, part of the major difference in liberals and conservatives is that they can't agree on the most fundamental precepts of the world around them. I'd just say debate tactfully and if someone has a divergent view of a fundamental truth that they should still obey the same rules (and since there's no clear majority I think that applies to us all).

Another thing, people need to avoid 'getting offended'. Getting offended in a debate tends to just show that your hearing an opinion you disagree with and if you let that overshadow everything your really showing that your way of seeing it is the only way your prepared to see it - and at that point your better off just getting out of it and standing on the sideline or just finding another topic that doesn't get you as riled up.

I definitely agree with that. It is true in politics, religion, and basically anything related to philosophy. The "basic truth" is something that neither party understands the other on. Tact and understanding is important as is trying to work within the other person's framework. If you do otherwise then you talk past them and that gets frustrating for both sides.

well, I see a little problem with #5 and #14 coexisting together. Which I believe even the rules might be interpreted differently.

You know why libs and conservatives can't ever agree on basic truths? Because you've been conditioned to avoid any ultimate truth that might alienate you from your "clique". If the truth is not supported by Christian fanaticism, the right wingers will ignore it. If the truth is not supported by PC fanaticism, the left wing will ignore it. This is WILLFUL ignorance. People have been dummied down by reality TV and Mtv and CNN and C Span and the media to the point where theyr too stupid to have any since of morality without some corn-fed frame work to guide them. Often times these corn-fed frame works are highly immoral, even though their followers (on both sides) will vehemently defend their frame work as the measuring stick of morality.
This kind of indoctrination is what will shephard the masses like sheep to their slaughter. This is why the big business tycoons and the NWO refer to the common people as "the profane" and they laugh at the commoner and make fun of the commoner for being too easily brainwashed to think logically on their own. I hate to say it but the ruling elite do have one thing, intelligence.

Last edited by snake321 on 23 Nov 2007, 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"The profane" are those who choose to remain in the dark, when presented with truths that go outside their comfort zone, they run and hide, or they act out like thought police and attack the truth teller. The profane do not want to know the truth, this is why they are the profane.

Last edited by snake321 on 23 Nov 2007, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Please, speak for yourself.

Debate is different from discussion.

Honestly, before 9/11 was there such a political divide? Did people so readily ignore basic facts?