I have a question and a suggestion. Is it just me, or is it incredibly annoying to step into a forum and see thread after thread about the same subject? And then, as you arbitrarily choose one of those threads, and yes, you can choose among them arbitrarily, it is the same damn arguments (if any) being passed back and forth pages after pages, with the occasional highlight of someone actually doing some new thinking.
One of the things I've been guilty of in these forums is that I tend to go a little too far sometimes (I just did in the paragraph above). 😳 Like last week when I more or less implied that all religious people are idiots. Why did I do that? Well, I got so annoyed at certain arguments clearly lacking anything but emotional and convictional content. If I'd argue the validity of the bible itself, someone would argue back at me that I must be wrong because the bible says so. The very source I'm questioning is used as an argument back at me! And repeatedly so. Whatever argument I made about Jesus or even Muhammed, the counterarguments were based on what is written in the bible. ?? This had me so irritated I just wanted to provoke these posters into using their brains (I refuse to believe they don't have any). I think I ended up provoking many of you whom I respect in this sense. 😕
My problem is not with another persons point of view per se. I have no need for anyone else to specifically agree with me. Some of my favourite posters here are in fact usually against my point of view. But I have a serious problem with having to wad through pages of the same arguments being repeated again and again. And when those arguments persist despite their very foundation being questioned... well, that just annoys the HIV out of me (not that I have HIV or that it would be a bad thing - to have it removed, I mean).
I wanted to start a debate about debates. I think we should put some rules in place:
1) You're not allowed to repeat your argument (if you've written it once, good that's it - you may wish to revise it - just hit reply and quote and add your revision), and...
2) ...you must read the entire thread before placing your argument (so that you won't repeat someone else's argument - if you think an argument was good, rec it. If you have something to add, add it from reply), and...
3) ...if you disagree with someone else's point of view you must not ask for references, but look for and provide references to the contrary yourself, and...
4) ...you must state exactly which point your arguing (like if someone has written a really tiresome post like this one, and you only wish to argue a specific detail), and...
5) ...you cannot base arguments purely on heart, but on thought.
As for the last point, any religious folks out there, this is not impossible. I often see arguments from thought by posters like Vistesd, Bosse, frogstomp, LH, and others I can't recall from the top of my head. So arguing the existence of (oh, yes, telerion) a God from reasoning is not an impossible thing. It's only (and Halitose) impossible if you want to take the bible literally (although I believe I've read some interesting arguments even from that standpoint).
These rules would benefit myself if no one else. I'm a stubborn son of a promiscuous woman (not that my mother really was promiscuous but I used a figure of speech that I can't write here for mod... never mind) and have a hard time not repeating myself when someone throws an argument back at me. I will follow these rules myself whether you people agree or not. Yes. I'm that stubborn.
As usual I'm talking too much, seeming pompous and self-righteous, so let me just put it in short: debate needs cleaning up, in my opinion. What do you think?
To argue that god exists because the bible says he does and the bible is correct because it is the word of god is a surprisingly common argument and is clearly pathetic. It is technically known as 'begging the question' and I agree it is annoying.
My irritation in debates, both here and in real life, are the people who say the thing that everybody already knows anyway, in response to an original idea. I don't understand the point in saying something if it is what everyone says already. For me, the only point in saying something is to put a new idea out there. Otherwise what's the point?
Oh, and the "I've thought that for the last 20 years and i'm not going to change my mind now" people are very dull.
The main purpose of debate should be to learn something new, or develop your ideas, by actually listening to the other person. A lot of people are trying to 'WIN', which is what causes tedious arguments. Debates are better if people keep their egos out of it. It's very rare to see anyone say "Oh yes, i was wrong, thank you for putting me straight and showing me the light."
What is the point of debate otherwise? Ego?
I think its ok to try to re-itterate a point if someone seems to have misunderstood though.
Originally posted by stockenInteresting concept. However, I believe that any discussion, no matter what provokes it, will end up at the point people really wanted to talk about in the first place.
I have a question and a suggestion. Is it just me, or is it incredibly annoying to step into a forum and see thread after thread about the same subject? And then, as you arbitrarily choose one of those threads, and yes, you can choose among them arbitrarily, it is the same damn arguments (if any) being passed back and forth pages after pages, with the ...[text shortened]... st put it in short: debate needs cleaning up, in my opinion. What do you think?
For example, if you really wanted to tell your girlfriend that she shouldn't use her teeth so much and hadn't been able to tell her because you thought she'd be offended you will get to that discussion anyway if she comes around to you to tell you that her hamster just died.
So it is with the debates forum. There are a lot of people hanging around who don't actually want to debate issues but want to just use the forum as a soap box for their own, often extreme, point of view. So, someone will start a thread about the dangers of eating fish at high altitude and it ends up as a thread about the same crap everyone was arguing about yesterday.
So, all in all, good luck to you on this one. Personally I'm not sure about point 3. because it means anyone can post any old made up rubbish and it is up to everyone else to find a source as to why it is rubbish.
Originally posted by twiceaknightI agree. I'm sure I've done my share or egotism in the past - but I;m 26 (and an egotist), what do you expect? What annoys me (apart from not being mentioned, Stocks), is people who assert a point, so you disprove it. Then they assert it again. So you disprove it again. So they assert it, again. So you disprove it, again. Or you gouge their eyes out. Not looking at anyone, freaky.
To argue that god exists because the bible says he does and the bible is correct because it is the word of god is a surprisingly common argument and is clearly pathetic. It is technically known as 'begging the question' and I agree it is annoying.
My irritation in debates, both here and in real life, are the people who say the thing that everybody al ...[text shortened]... its ok to try to re-itterate a point if someone seems to have misunderstood though.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI didn't mention you because I meant to give examples of people whom believe in God's existence (in one way or another) and could argue their case properly. (At least I think they all believe in God one way or the other.)
...What annoys me (apart from not being mentioned, Stocks)...
You don't believe in God, right? Although, had I wanted to give examples of people capable of successfully arguing their case (whatever it may be), you would certainly have been among my top candidates. 😉
I aint too sure about your vision of a debate.
If you go to an anti-war lecture, you will have only people that are against war there. If you go to a pro-war lecture it will be packed with pro-war fans.
I aint too sure that anybody can agree with something that is not already one of its own idea.
Lets say, you think that the US are the best country in the world.
Whatever news or piece of info - no matter how silly incoherent and absurd they might be - you will only remember and believe the ones that go in your way of thinking. You will only hear the good ones and disregard the bad ones. Of course if you're anti-US, you will keep only the bad ones.
I know for sure that I have the same opinions that I had when I was a kid, and then - from my own experience - I know that you remain all your life what you are born.
What I have discovered is that you absolutely don't have to try to convince anyone of your own opinion and ideas, because they are your personal truth, which means they are absolutely true for yourself but they're absolutely no reason for your truth to be working for anybody else in this world.
I must say that I was pretty bad at some stage, trying to convince everybody around of my ideas, then it just stops and I started accepting the others the way they were.
So ya, I don't find any interest in debates here, but you gotta keep yourself busy while waiting for a move.
Dunno how long I have been here on RHP, but it's the first ever thread that could be interesting to follow. But then I aint sure it's really a debate (two persons trying to prove that their opinion is the right one), more a common share of thoughts. Fair play to ya anyway!
Originally posted by scottishinnzProving a point to your satisfaction is easy.
I agree. I'm sure I've done my share or egotism in the past - but I;m 26 (and an egotist), what do you expect? What annoys me (apart from not being mentioned, Stocks), is people who assert a point, so you disprove it. Then they assert it again. So you disprove it again. So they assert it, again. So you disprove it, again. Or you gouge their eyes out. Not looking at anyone, freaky.
Proving a point to their satisifaction is usually impossible.
The audience decides who wins a debate.
Maybe we need that feature at the top (or bottom) of each thread -- the voting for who is winning? Where is that RHP code monkey...?
Originally posted by spruce112358Oh yes, ad populum, that is EXACTLY what the debates forum needs.
Proving a point to your satisfaction is easy.
Proving a point to their satisifaction is usually impossible.
The audience decides who wins a debate.
Maybe we need that feature at the top (or bottom) of each thread -- the voting for who is winning? Where is that RHP code monkey...?
I was being sarcastic, if you couldn't tell 🙂
Originally posted by twiceaknightBut who knows if the idea came up to your head is truely your original, or something someone said before and you just came up with the same or similar idea? How do you know what everyone knows and what only you yourself knows?
My irritation in debates, both here and in real life, are the people who say the thing that everybody already knows anyway, in response to an original idea. I don't understand the point in saying something if it is what everyone says already. For me, the only point in saying something is to put a new idea out there. Otherwise what's the point?
Sometimes stating obvious can be beneficial for some people, especially on internet where readers varies in age-groups and backgrounds. What appears to you obvious may not be to some others. I see your point in that can be irritating when done in a particular group of people in which the topic area is well-eatablished though, as I get annoyed easily by sarcasm or something similar.
Originally posted by stockenHa ha, right! I don't believe in God. I thought it was just a "able to argue inanely" list!
I didn't mention you because I meant to give examples of people whom believe in God's existence (in one way or another) and could argue their case properly. (At least I think they all believe in God one way or the other.)
You don't believe in God, right? Although, had I wanted to give examples of people capable of successfully arguing their case (whatever it may be), you would certainly have been among my top candidates. 😉
Originally posted by kyueOk. What i mean is...there is a general school of thought on most issues. When someone challenges that school of thought with a different perspective (possibly original and hopefully interesting), it is irritating if someone simply repeats the generally understood school of thought as if that person didn't know about it. Of course they knew about it....it is the general school of thought.
But who knows if the idea came up to your head is truely your original, or something someone said before and you just came up with the same or similar idea? How do you know what everyone knows and what only you yourself knows?
Sometimes stating obvious can be beneficial for some people, especially on internet where readers varies in age-groups and background ...[text shortened]... topic area is well-eatablished though, as I get annoyed easily by sarcasm or something similar.
I know people like this. I can't be bothered to talk to them anymore. It is boring, pointless and eventually irritating.
It's more interesting/fun if people can entertain the different perspective for a while, consider its merits, and see what can be learned from it.
Some issues are controversial, ie. there are conflicting generally accepted schools of thought.It's ok to debate these, in fact i suppose it's necessary. I still think life's more colourful if people can bring new angles/perspectives on the issue to the debate though, rather than just walking down the well trodden paths of repetition.
The originality of an idea is not what is important for me, but whether or not it brings new and interesting/helpful input.
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to debate, i'm just talking about my personal feelings on the subject.
Originally posted by twiceaknightThat's fair enough.
Ok. What i mean is...there is a general school of thought on most issues. When someone challenges that school of thought with a different perspective (possibly original and hopefully interesting), it is irritating if someone simply repeats the generally understood school of thought as if that person didn't know about it. Of course they knew about it.... ...[text shortened]... o tell anyone how to debate, i'm just talking about my personal feelings on the subject.
I wonder some people tend to be repetitive because they can't explain well but they feel so strongly about it and so simply re-state the idea in hope that other people may realise the depth (that they believe exist) of the statement. It probably is not a matter of competition but when opponents start becoming repetitive that is a good indication that you are winning. So next time, instead of being irritated, just feel sorry for their lack of linguistic abilities because you've got what they haven't got, perhaps.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot looking at anyone, freaky.
I agree. I'm sure I've done my share or egotism in the past - but I;m 26 (and an egotist), what do you expect? What annoys me (apart from not being mentioned, Stocks), is people who assert a point, so you disprove it. Then they assert it again. So you disprove it again. So they assert it, again. So you disprove it, again. Or you gouge their eyes out. Not looking at anyone, freaky.
Is that:
"Not looking at anyone freaky"?
or
"Not looking at anyone... (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, HEY) Freaky!"
Just to be clear.
Originally posted by stockenI suggest that we debate the merits of your debate assertion and attendant suggestions. All in favor, ignore this post.
I have a question and a suggestion. Is it just me, or is it incredibly annoying to step into a forum and see thread after thread about the same subject? And then, as you arbitrarily choose one of those threads, and yes, you can choose among them arbitrarily, it is the same damn arguments (if any) being passed back and forth pages after pages, with the ...[text shortened]... st put it in short: debate needs cleaning up, in my opinion. What do you think?