Debate: A Code of Conduct

[Noitartst]

I've got a blog up, and you can read all about my ideas and guidelines for debate here: noitartst | Smile! You


I've had a hard time finding anyone to do it with me, though. I tried on that now-defunct puretalkdebate forum, and was basically told I'm the most arrogant thing on the planet. They said they'd try my ideas, but then after explaining them, they chickened out, which is too bad... for them, and for me.

As elucidated on the blog, this is a form of therapy. I'm tired of excuses, and am looking to move forward.

So, who's with me?

[barts]

So, N, what's this code of conduct you want to debate?

[Noitartst]

Well, the blog explains in more detail, but in short, I am not an excuse.
1. You shall always answer a question according to the question.
2. Not only does disrespecting a question hurt my feelings, more importantly it violates the golden rule, which is disallowed under any circumstances.
3. Perceived motives are irrelevant, ie, whether someone wants to be right doesn’t make stonewalling, or spite justified; in short, man up.
4. Passive aggression, as in unilateral disenagement, is anathema; it’s controlling, mainipulative, so don’t waste my time..

Keep in mind, asking questions too personal is out of bounds, when it comes to inquiries, but that’s basically the only exception allowed, for the sake of candor.

So there ya haves it–lookin’ back, but focused forward. I trust that formula will work.

[barts]

Well, the blog explains in more detail, but in short, I am not an excuse.
1. You shall always answer a question according to the question.
2. Not only does disrespecting a question hurt my feelings, more importantly it violates the golden rule, which is disallowed under any circumstances.
3. Perceived motives are irrelevant, ie, whether someone wants to be right doesn’t make stonewalling, or spite justified; in short, man up.
4. Passive aggression, as in unilateral disenagement, is anathema; it’s controlling, mainipulative, so don’t waste my time..

Keep in mind, asking questions too personal is out of bounds, when it comes to inquiries, but that’s basically the only exception allowed, for the sake of candor.

So there ya haves it–lookin’ back, but focused forward. I trust that formula will work.

Did you want to debate your rules?

[BlackSheep]

I've got a blog up, and you can read all about my ideas and guidelines for debate here: noitartst | Smile! You


I've had a hard time finding anyone to do it with me, though. I tried on that now-defunct puretalkdebate forum, and was basically told I'm the most arrogant thing on the planet. They said they'd try my ideas, but then after explaining them, they chickened out, which is too bad... for them, and for me.

As elucidated on the blog, this is a form of therapy. I'm tired of excuses, and am looking to move forward.

So, who's with me?

I scanned your blog and didn't see anything about a debate code of conduct.

[Darklordabc]

4. Passive aggression, as in unilateral disenagement, is anathema; it’s controlling, mainipulative, so don’t waste my time..

How exactly would you enforce a rule like this? One persons passive aggressiveness, is another's witful sarcasm.

[BlackSheep]

Well, the blog explains in more detail, but in short, I am not an excuse.

I don't know what "I am not an excuse" means.

1. You shall always answer a question according to the question.

A bit too subjective of a rule, while I agree in senescence is is a good idea, people do not always understand things the same way.

2. Not only does disrespecting a question hurt my feelings, more importantly it violates the golden rule, which is disallowed under any circumstances.

I assume you mean insulting by disrespecting a question?

3. Perceived motives are irrelevant, ie, whether someone wants to be right doesn’t make stonewalling, or spite justified; in short, man up.

The problem is that your first two rules are largely about perceived motives. I always try to avoid judging what the persons intent was, but I do not always succeed.

4. Passive aggression, as in unilateral disenagement, is anathema; it’s controlling, mainipulative, so don’t waste my time..

This I agree with, but again it clearly is about a perceived motive.

Keep in mind, asking questions too personal is out of bounds, when it comes to inquiries, but that’s basically the only exception allowed, for the sake of candor.

I have never been one to avoid personal questions, but I understand the need for this for most, but again it is a fuzzy line. What is too personal? Or maybe what is not too personal?

So there ya haves it–lookin’ back, but focused forward. I trust that formula will work.

I have never really though to put a suggested set of rules down, but it seems a worthwhile goal. Again like most rules the tough part is making them clear enough to be easily understood for people who wish to comply and to be enforced on those who do not.

A big issue I have is people who fall back on ignoring any point they do not wish to respond to and then later claim they do n0t respond to invalid, silly, worthless points or other general statements that are very hard to defend against because not real argument is given.

[BlackSheep]

How exactly would you enforce a rule like this? One persons passive aggressiveness, is another's witful sarcasm.

I think he is suggesting that "wiful sarcasm" has not place ether. I mean what place does sarcasm really play in an honest debate?

sar·casm noun \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\

Definition of SARCASM

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b : the use or language of sarcasm
Sarcasm - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[DragonFly]

DEBATE MISTAKES

1. One not having learned the subject matter in depth, for example, on evolution and the proposed method(s) of selection, and its history of debate, pro and con, some of it concerning Intelligent Design. Note that Earth science is necessary, as well, and not just of current times, but of the previous 4 billion years.

2. Same as (1), but the case where one doesn’t study the subject on purpose, saying that they have no need for it, perhaps due to some ‘belief’ from a wish. This is worse than (1), since then they may just go against anything and everything. This will be catastrophic.

3. Not following the debate. While this may sometimes work as a good “pop-in” response to an isolated point that is very complete, chances are that it isn’t, usually, for either it builds upon some prior points or the information has been much elaborated on elsewhere in great detail.

4. Inserting a pet peeve that could only be marginally related, at some great distance, but then repeatedly promoting it in the main. Debaters will wonder why.

5. Begging the question. Example: “Brahman did it.”

6. Completely changing the topic to another, in order to cover the embarrassment that one is not making any headway on the current topic.

7. Other avoidance diversions, such as name-calling or huffy-puffy bad moods.

8. Rambling. This usually carries zero information content.

9. Pushing against all because one has nothing to push forward with. Always totally dismantle all the points that you are against by showing just as much, if not more, evidence against and also for your alternative stance. Else, it goes nowhere.

10. Don’t go bonkers, for you may feel ill from it. This may even retard your life at large and your studying. Also, people may avoid you, because of some of the involuntary ills imposed on them.

11. All these kinds of mistakes, called 'drops', will cause one to lose the debate rather instantly.

[Darklordabc]

I think he is suggesting that "wiful sarcasm" has not place ether. I mean what place does sarcasm really play in an honest debate?

Sarcasm can reveal the ridiculous in what other people are saying. And arguably it does it more effectively then neatly pointing out the logical inconsistencies of an argument.

[BlackSheep]

Sarcasm can reveal the ridiculous in what other people are saying. And arguably it does it more effectively then neatly pointing out the logical inconsistencies of an argument.

I see no way that causing to "harm or cause pain" is any benefit to a honest debate.

Please explain how rather than simply claiming it.

[Darklordabc]

I see no way that causing to "harm or cause pain" is any benefit to a honest debate.

Please explain how rather than simply claiming it.

Not all sarcasm is intended to causes harm or pain. Sometimes its just intended to reveal the absurdities in the opponents arguments, which is the objective of a debate.
It can also be targeted at an idea or principle, instead of a person.