Following Ivanhoe's requests for people to name serious debates inwhich they were involved and enjoyed, it occurred to me that most debates suffer from the same thing. Preaching.
I do not necessarily mean preaching from a purely religious point of view, but from a political or patriotic point too. There have been countless threads where an intelligent debate has started, only to be interupted by a post (no names here) saying that all unbelievers go to hell, or that Bush is a liar and a wormonger etc. etc. This seems to do one of two things, it either results in the debate changing to deal with such pointless and inappropriate intejection, or it begins a period of cursing, slagging, flaming and the like.
Unfortunately both these actions merely serve to perpetuate the continuation of the interjection, as those responsible now see it as their duty to defend, persecute, correct and the such like. Invariably this leads to a total breakdown in the subject of debate and the level of reasoning on any further subject.
So, I would like to hear people's opinions on whether;
a) they think as I do about this
b) whether a ban on such preached interjection would help rectify the problem and improve the all round quality of the debates
c) how such a ban could be realised and if there are other alternatives.
I would like to ask those who are serious about this forum to take part, and those who are just going to preach to please remain in other threads. Nemesio, Ivanhoe, bbar, prn all of you are, I believe, quite capable of taking this discussion seriously and further a sensible debate on it, I urge you to take part. Thank you 🙂
and i severily doubt that chirs or russ will condone such a thing - for all we know, chris is a hand-clapping pentecostal while russ is a strict catholic...
and when you say preaching, do you really mean people spouting the same arguments over anf over again? even after they've been "shot down", so to speak? methinks that, if that is the case, everyone here should be banned...
free speech = #1.
if you dont like it, dont read it, get over it.
as for preaching, my opinion is if your going to throw out your beliefs (kerry is a communist, those who have not accepted christ are going to hell) should ALSO back it up with facts/references/why you believe that. not just an unsupported opinion. other than that, i dont see a problem with preaching.
Whatever the merits of a ban might be, I suspect it would be very difficult and time-consuming to police.
While I think I understand the behaviour you are trying to describe, accusations of 'preaching' would probably appear in the Debates forum rather more frequently than that, ie whenever strongly held and opposing views appeared.
Let's face it, the quality of debate in here is low more often than it is high. I think the probable outcome of a ban of this nature would be to add more weight at the low end of the equation.
Perhaps I should offer more clarification on what I meant by preaching. I did not mean to say that people cannot say what they want to, free speech is extremely important. My annoyance is derived from when people post something that has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but with their own agenda, a post which is off topic and not in reply to any of the previous posts.
I do not begrudge anyone who preaches in real life, nor those that seek out preaching, that is their own free will and good luck to them. What I do feel is that if the forum is designed to be for debating, then it should be for just that. Ivanhoe is right when he says the standard of debating has fallen of late and I feel it is down to this very issue. I don't mean preaching the word of god is wrong, I mean that perhaps when the debate is concerning the philosophy of religion it does not have to include such posts as "The word of god is all and does not need to be proved." etc. Even this would not be so bad, were it not for the fact that it gets people's backs up and then an enduring argument starts, ruining the debate.
I also would like to say I am not demonstrating to get a ban on preaching, I am just trying to get people's views on the subject.
I think he's talking about this.
ATY: Are sheep too wooly?
nemesio: I think sheep are very wooly, but not too wooly. Their wooliness doesn't hurt them but it clothes the poor.
LarryBird: Sheep should not be so wooly that they step on their own wool, thus fouling it. How wooly are sheep?
DancingCheerleader: Sheep have no rights as they are only sheep. The rights of the people who need the wool are all that matters. Sheep are not too wooly.
AnnoyingPreacher: BUSH IS A WARMONGING SCUMBAG!!! FREE IRAQ FROM HIS IMPERIALISTIC, SELF SERVING OCCUPATION!!!! AMERICA HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME FOR 9-11!!!!!
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI find this annoying, yet I don't know if I support any kind of censoring of it. I abstain.
I think he's talking about this.
ATY: Are sheep too wooly?
nemesio: I think sheep are very wooly, but not too wooly. Their wooliness doesn't hurt them but it clothes the poor.
LarryBird: Sheep should not be so wooly that they step on their own wool, thus fouling it. How wooly are sheep?
DancingCheerleader: Sheep have no rights as they ...[text shortened]... OM HIS IMPERIALISTIC, SELF SERVING OCCUPATION!!!! AMERICA HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME FOR 9-11!!!!!
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think he's talking about this.
ATY: Are sheep too wooly?
nemesio: I think sheep are very wooly, but not too wooly. Their wooliness doesn't hurt them but it clothes the poor.
LarryBird: Sheep should not be so wooly that they step on their own wool, thus fouling it. How wooly are sheep?
DancingCheerleader: Sheep have no rights as they ...[text shortened]... OM HIS IMPERIALISTIC, SELF SERVING OCCUPATION!!!! AMERICA HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME FOR 9-11!!!!!
LMAO 😀 😵 😀
Originally posted by yevgenipyeah-but people in israel grow pigs on platforms on stilts!
In Israel it is forbidden (How Ironic): That is, you are only allowed to preach if you are jewish and if you do it with a licence.
(sorry-i've been trying to get that one in in conversation for a while)