Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There have been a lot of remarks on this board about the need for reasonable debate. What are some of the key words or phrases that you see in a post that tell you that the conversation is not likely go anywhere meaningful, or by their inclusion, damage the credibility of the post? I'll start with a list of what I see from both sides.
Fascist
Nazi
Un or anti-American
Communist
Imperialism
Colonialism
Lies Fill in the blank hater
Anti-_________
Anything that smacks of 'revealed politics' should be a warning sign. All mantras based on either manufactured facts or no facts at all should be a warning sign.
The worst is pulling one sentence out of a long post, hanging an argument on debating it, and never addressing the original point. This shows me there is nothing the opposition can say to contradict the topic at hand, so they attempt to change topics to something they can debate.
Ex:
Ford cars go fast. The new GT is a very fast car. The car can achieve a top speed of 200 MPH. The car broke a speed record at recent time trials. The Ford GT is built for speed because of it's lightweight structure.
Response:
YOU CALL THE GT A "NEW" CAR? ARE YOU CRAZY?
The point of the post was entirely missed. Speed was the issue at hand, not the "newness" of the car.
lousy example I know, but my brain cells are limited this early.
Those are all good additions. I think the general assertion of fact about someone's feelings or motives with no support other than personal disagreement about tactics is one that's commonly used.
Calling opposition "paid" or saying they are "in the pockets of xyz". As if the point made is totally irrelevant just because the source is not popular. This just means anytime you start making a really good point that is hard to debate based on some conclusions drawn by a particular group, the "yeah, but they got paid to say that" argument comes out. Seems to me like if something is totally wrong, it should be easy to point out why.
Calling opposition "paid" or saying they are "in the pockets of xyz". As if the point made is totally irrelevant just because the source is not popular. This just means anytime you start making a really good point that is hard to debate, the "yeah, but they got paid to say that" argument comes out. Seems to me like if something is totally wrong, it should be easy to point out why.
I believe this is a valid argument, similar to trusting a real estate agent who is paid by the seller. You need to verify what he/she is telling you because you may not be getting the straight scoop.
I believe this is a valid argument, similar to trusting a real estate agent who is paid by the seller. You need to verify what he/she is telling you because you may not be getting the straight scoop.
That's valid if you know the person is being paid. It's not valid to assume someone is paid because they express the same opinion or offer information that supports someone's statement.
A couple of things I look for to spell the end of objective discussions are the pulling into the discussion something disconnected from the original topic, use of "catch phrases" and reference to sites which are advocacy blogs.
In the discussion about worldwide excess population growth their were "bends" towards welfare moms, abortion and immigration. Within the context of the original topic, these are clearly advocacy issues not really linked to the core discussion, and generally spin the discussion into a back and forth on "beat to death" topics. I've also seen many postings with folks espousing a certain point of view and then having a referenced attachment to an advocacy blog or site.
On the other hand, it really gets the action going between those passionate about those subjects. Perhaps civilized debate isn't really always desirable on this type of board. I will say that those passionate on both sides really get into their issues, despite original topic.
I believe this is a valid argument, similar to trusting a real estate agent who is paid by the seller. You need to verify what he/she is telling you because you may not be getting the straight scoop.
In that case, 95% of opinions can be brushed aside, because somewhere there is someone supporting that opinion that is a paid person aligned with a particular cause.
Once again though, if someone is clearly wrong, it should be simple to lay out why they are wrong. The "Bush and his big oil buddies" argument, or the "EXXon paid them" argument are VERY weak. Prove it was about money fueled hidden agendas, or contest the point. Otherwise to blow it off is a sign of a very weak argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
