|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/12/2007 10:30 PM |
|
A few people have noticed that, while I get involved in discussions, I don't usually take a positive stand. In other words, I will argue about other people's positions, but I don't advocate a position of my own. There are a lot of reasons why I do this. Some of them are deliberate, and some are not. A few of my reasons are as follows:
1) I value the debate more than the conclusions that may be drawn from it. This is especially true because I don't find a lot of debates that actually persuade people, and so there's little reason to worry about it. Instead, we can sit back and enjoy the ride.
2) I first adopted this position at UtahDebate where I wanted to find out what the candidates believed and therefore I wanted to avoid leading the candidates. My thinking was that if I made my position too clear, then the candidates might skew their statements to try to appeal to me. Ultimately it was moot, since the candidates were all asked plenty of leading questions by the other participants, but I digress. Those were good times.
3) I really do want to have all positions well debated. I've heard a lot of people making arguments that, while persuasive enough to some audiences, are absolutely laughable when presented to their opponents. If we are to have a meaningful debate on these topics, then both sides should be prepared. If I help you shore up your arguments by poking at some of their weak points, then you may be better prepared in future debates.
4) I'm an argumentative jerk who likes to disagree with people for the heck of it.
5) The two big conversational taboos are religion and politics. I think this is because people get too emotionally invested in them, and I think that the biggest reason for that is because people aren't really discussing or even debating, but rather they are advocating. It's not about communication but conversion. I think that this is counter-productive from almost every perspective, including from an effort to convert. This is why I can have conversations about politics and religion (often at the same time, thanks to Governor Romney) without people getting hurt. I avoid descendind into advocacy.
6) I don't have a well-formed opinion on a number of these issues. I could really go either way on gun control or social security. While I am opposed to welfare, it is for entirely different reasons than Mulholland is opposed to it. Ultimately, I am interested in the arguments on both sides of all issues in order to help me form my position, which I am doing even when I appear to be doggedly defending/attacking some particular position. (Did you know that eyewitnesses are not particularly accurate, e.g. they may not be correct about a lot of details that they had witnessed, including major details such as race. The most interesting thing to me is that correctness does not correlate at all with confidence. Witnesses who are absolutely sure that they are right are just as likely to be wrong as ones who are completely unsure about themselves.)
7) Deep down, I'm afraid that my personal beliefs will be mocked and ridiculed.
8) I am a huge fan of the socratic method of teaching. Inspired by stories of teachers who ask their students to defend their positions, even after switching to agree with the teacher, I emulate them by vigorously attacking a person's positions. If they switch, then I might just switch and argue their old platform.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've decide that it's time to change things. While I still believe in my reasons for taking a (relatively) neutral stance, I will try, during the coming week, to consistenly advocate positions. Some of these will be what I actually believe, and some may not. I'll try not to waste anybody's time by taking a position already advocated by someone else on the board, and I will try to defend them where I can.
I hope that we can all have a great time. My only regret is that I wasn't able to participate last week, and I'll probably be incommunicado the following week. So, if I can't be a condescending jerk to everyone, please forgive me. I'll try to get back to it as soon as I can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|