Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Exploring the Idea of a Thread for Arguing

12
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 3, 2021, 4:26 pm from Feedbacks & Clarifications Post #208
Quote from Stef on April 3, 2021, 11:15 am

I would add that from my part I am ok if someone here occasionally use "heavy" or "not-totally fair" tactics against me, as I would take it as a much needed opportunity to practice self defense and calibrated counter attack in a relatively safe virtual space.

You gave me an idea: we could make a thread specifically developed for arguing.

Say, one comes with a topic and each takes sides, either for, or against.

Then, it becomes a free for all training ground.

There are debating competitions like that.
But this would be on a written medium, and with other shrewd, power-aware folks -plus, third party feedback whenever available-.

Outside of that post-specific thread though, I can't have any high concentrations of aggressive/ covert aggressive / manipulative / fragile egos examples lying around.

Examples of behavior that are at the same time high power / assertive, respectful and effective, are rarer than poorer ones, and thus far more useful.

There's enough turkeys scratching on most other online forums.
The way I see it, it's either this community sets the eagles' examples -or at least strives towards that example: nobody's a perfect eagle-, or it's best not to have it at all.

We can also make the scenarios like role-playing or acting sessions.
Then, we will be more detached too.

For Example

Person A: Pretends to be Donald Trump arguing for building a wall
Person B: Pretends to be the Mexican president discussing Donald Trump's proposition

Options

  • Debates
  • Acting/Role-Playing
  • Negotiation Games

Example

I recalled Craig Ferguson did this before and managed to find it quickly:

Lucio Buffalmano, Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStefselffriend

I personally might sit this one out (or do it with an ad-hoc newly created user).

But if there is just two people who say yes and want to give it a try, then let's give it a try.

Matthew Whitewood and Stef have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodStef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Well i say yes! 🙂

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood

Matthew, you wanna go for it?

If you're up for it, let's pick a topic to debate, and let's go for it.

We can call the thread something like:

  • power moves training mat
  • power moves sparring session
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 7, 2021, 2:55 am

Matthew, you wanna go for it?

I am definitely open to trying this out.
Though I was mainly intending to facilitate the brainstorming of this because a few people seemed interested in the other thread.

I was thinking if we need any structure or guidelines like:

  • taking turns to propose an argument
  • free for all with other people jumping in or only 2 people debating

Topics

  • privacy discussions
  • naming the collaborator - enlightened or what not
  • is chicken better steamed or fried?

 

Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.

Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am

Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.

Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.

The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.

Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.

Quote from selffriend on April 8, 2021, 9:29 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am

Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.

Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.

The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.

Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.

Hi selffriend,

I may be interpreting this wrongly.
But it seems you may have viewed that certain discussions may have shifted into more personal territory.
I think we should clarify those in this thread:
Feedbacks & Clarifications

On this site, we do our best to stay away from any nasty tactics of debating like attacking personalities as Lucio has mentioned.
If you feel certain lines have been crossed, we should bring this up and clarify.

And this also extends to interactions between me and you.
Maybe we didn't finish our clarification previously.
To be clear, nothing I said was personal as well.
It is focused on the message of the post rather than the person.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 1:53 am
Quote from selffriend on April 8, 2021, 9:29 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am

Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.

Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.

The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.

Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.

Hi selffriend,

I may be interpreting this wrongly.
But it seems you may have viewed that certain discussions may have shifted into more personal territory.
I think we should clarify those in this thread:
Feedbacks & Clarifications

On this site, we do our best to stay away from any nasty tactics of debating like attacking personalities as Lucio has mentioned.
If you feel certain lines have been crossed, we should bring this up and clarify.

And this also extends to interactions between me and you.
Maybe we didn't finish our clarification previously.
To be clear, nothing I said was personal as well.
It is focused on the message of the post rather than the person.

Hi Matthew. I was not clear enough. I never say that you or anyone have done personal attacks. In my subjective opinion, accusing others for personal attack is itself a mild form of personal attack that I try to avoid. I always believe that people have good intentions.

OTOH, personal attack or not, just like harassment, is not defined by the speakers but more defined by the listeners. So it means that even though you and me do not believe that a sentence is personal-attacking, it doesn't really block someone else to think in this way. As long as one party has a slightest feeling of being personal attacked, the discussion becomes pointless. Well, this is just my feelings. Welcome to debate on this.

It is good that you mentioned about the rules. I respect that. I definitely agree with the rules as I find personal attacks never help solving the real problem. However, the rule does not equal to reality. For example, when a reporter ask Chinese govt if the minority in Xinjiang is massacred, China firmly responded with a (possible) powermove: "we have rules against the massacre of minorities"

Of course, this forum is obviously different from XUAR in every aspects. I am using this recent, well-known example to clarify the relation between the rule and reality.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef

yet I think we need a place in which we CAN DO personal attacks and nasty moves to practice how to protect from those, in the same way if you are learning karate you also need to be prepare for you opponent to bring a gun, throw sand in your eyes, try to gouge your eyes out and all kind of nasty behavior.

the problem is how to strike a balance between the practice being hardcore enough as to really be helpful to prepare you to deal with real life situation and not so hard as to hurt you just as bad as the real life threat!

Lucio Buffalmano and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmanoselffriend
12
Processing...