The debate forum was always fun, if a bit shouty at times, and I think it would be fun to have a new one. A post about a topic in general isn't nearly as likely to generate a lengthy, nuanced discussion as one in a debate forum is. Anyway, I'm just throwing it out there.
Well if it was very well moderated I'd support it. You might make a good mod. Absinthe could help out too. But it'd have to be impartial moderation. Not dictated by personal opinons and beliefs.
Well, if I were to moderate it I certainly wouldn't police anyone's opinions, I'd just try to keep things civil and vaguely logical without the sort of thing Corpse mentioned happening. Either way it would be a cool thing to see happen.
No typing in caps?
I really want the debate forum back. There will always be the risk of trolling, but that's part of the fun.
Ad hominem and name calling should obviously be against the rules, but I think telling people to "calm down" or "stop fighting" should be against the rules too.
Oh, and there should be a rule that you can't make a thread unless you can take it when somebody shits all over everything you say.
I'd focus mostly on civility and disruptiveness, though that does include blatantly illogical arguments that derail the thread, like 4 pages of strawmen and cherry picking. I think we might have been a bit heavy-handed with the debate forum in the past when it was actually moderated and don't quite want a repeat of that, but some small degree of pruning is probably necessary.
People can get passionate if they want, there's nothing wrong with that as long as it contributes to the discussion and doesn't force it off into pointless directions that just frustrate everyone.
I'll ad hominem YOUR strawman.
Quote from: FloundermanClock;1833967I'll ad hominem YOUR strawman.
I'm sorry sir but I'm going to have to insist that you take your logical fallacies to Fester's Quest.
Also are you from Tol'Vir or some other lost city?
Quote from: RibsClock;1833974The argument that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is incorrect because of the fallacious reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion is, in itself, a logical fallacy.
LET THAT CREEP INTO YOUR MIND AND MAKE SWEET SWEET LOVE TO IT
'
I have no trouble with that at all. A logically justifiable argument may still be false as well. However, without using logic to arrive at a conclusion, you're essentially guessing. If you happen to guess right, that's great, but it's not consistent.
i should be mod of the debate forum
YOU IDIOTS, JESUS WAS BLACK!
I'll ask his mom. She chills down the street from my work under the Kennedy Expressway on Fullerton.
(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F%257Eivychat%2Funderpass.JPG&hash=b1af1094f712d558aed4a183562e9a685ef833f2)
Looks like a hobo piss stain to me.
Quote from: AbsintheClock;1834131Looks like a hobo piss stain to me.
Wasn't all Jesus was really?
WHITE DEVIL! You the work of Yacub.
if you want truly impartial moderation, then you need to find somebody to moderate it that would almost never post there
basically what i'm getting at is that if one is inclined to believe himself a giant debate nerdo and even knows what ad hominem strawman red herring 1) mean 2) wouldn't bat an eye in using the terms completely unironically, they probably shouldn't be let near the mod cp because it's nearly impossible for them to be truly impartial
use self policing (debate forum posters reporting posts and sending PMs behind the scenes), and the moderator acts more in the capacity of an arbitrator (since we'll never really have a third party involved in this sort of thing)
I would hope that whoever is chosen to mod the debate forum can identify logical fallacies (unironically).
i'm sayin there's a difference between one who can identify those fallacies and one who can identify those fallacies without drawing attention to the fact they can identify those fallacies
and that's not ad hominem on you lil buddy
see what i did there
Ok, I understand what you mean, but why wouldn't you want to point out a fallacious argument? How would you go about it instead?
in response to the both of you: i mean, i ultimately don't really care how you guys decide to handle it for yourselves. i'm rarely if ever going to post in the forum if you guys get to create it so i'm not going to try to impose myself in any kind of practical way.
i'm merely... conveying the opinion that i may or may not share with others wherein being an insufferable debate "aficionado" carries a certain stigma for many 'round these parts. i actually completely agree with you both on a semantical basis ââ,¬â€ it's great to have some quickdraw debate terms when you're actually having a, you know, debate ââ,¬â€ but i'm just pointing out that use of such terms and general debate snobbery might rub people the wrong way and start a downward spiral in any given thread.
pointing out logical fallacies is all fine and good (necessary, even) and i'd expect anyone posting in the debate forum would be able to calmly and properly do it, but doing it with some unintentionally inflammatory language given the debate forum's history might be accomplishing it the wrong way if the goal is civility. and don't think i'm just talking about a few stupid buzzwords, because i'm not, i'm trying to get at the deeper concept of unintentional debate elitism.
look, i know i'm all over the place here, but don't take all this as anything more than "if we're gonna be serious about having a debate forum again, we should probably take care to implement the same elitism-free environment that we're trying to foster everywhere else," which isn't to say an uneducated and dumbed down environment. to some, the pride in identifying logical missteps clearly and use of some handy terms just makes sense, but to others it might make them feel stupid and push them away.
if everybody wants their debate forum, then i'd like to see them have it, i would. but we've all seen the forum tank in spectacular fashion multiple times in the past and i think it's worthwhile bringing up concerns like these before we jump right into it. maybe i'm misattributing reasons, maybe not. i'd love to hear everyone else's opinions because that's the whole point of this discussion and i'm dying to know if i've come close to hitting the nail on the head for some people or i'm just waaaaay off.
I completely agree with that sentiment, Biggs. As I mentioned previously, I think we were a bit heavy-handed with the debate forum before and that's not the style of moderation I'd like to see. Better to let the debate itself sort out the logic of things unless someone's hammering away at something totally illogical to the point of disrupting the rest of the discussion. I think we should foster an environment of exploring ideas, not attacking one another.
What's this, some kind of debate-off?
It's a meta-debate.
A debate to ultimately decide whether or not you can debate some more.
still waiting for the inevitable masturbation pun
Quote from: Quark;1834338still waiting for the inevitable masturbation pun
Keep waiting.
Then let's have a logical discussion forum instead of a debate forum, cause this is shaping up to be pretty much the tone I was looking for.
I believe this thread itself is proof that the debate forum is a horrible idea.
Quote from: Asshatclock;1834368I believe this thread itself is proof that the debate forum is a horrible idea.
Well they're debating right now and they're not being dicks. Biggs Albino and Corpsegrinder are all bringing up good points and being civil.
Quote from: Asshatclock;1834368I believe this thread itself is proof that the debate forum is a horrible idea.
Please elaborate.
noooo don't take the bait u fewel
Perhaps "Debate Forum" is the wrong name. Plato's Playground was a pretty good name I think, as it conveyed the idea that it was more about the logical discussion of ideas and philosophy and less about presenting arguments in specific formats and then deciding who "won".
That's a good idea Thor, I have to say I agree.
Debater? I hardly even met her! ORHORHORHOR
But yeah, it would be nice to have it back.