Debates subforum

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17384
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Debates subforum

Postby ccgr » Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:41 am

In an effort to make the Spiritual Matters forums no so overwhelming I've moved the debates to a aptly named sub forum.

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Debates subforum

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:55 am

Does not seem to be working for me.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:04 am

Gah! I just wrote a ridiculously long reply... Thank God for the back button and the clipboard... :mrgreen:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17384
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ccgr » Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:05 am

hmmm, strange. Try now.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ArchAngel » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:08 am

Smart, I like it.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Debates subforum

Postby Sstavix » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:09 pm

Seems like a wise idea.

User avatar
epsons
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Great White North

Re: Debates subforum

Postby epsons » Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:25 am

Maybe it should be hidden under a dozen layers of subforums... like a proverbial porn folder, of sorts. :P
"I tried sniffing coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose."

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17384
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ccgr » Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:48 am

other alternative were password protecting it or making it available to people who wanted access to it

TripExistence
donkey
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:00 pm
Are you human?: Not likely

Re: Debates subforum

Postby TripExistence » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:25 am

I never really post in the debate threads, but I really like this idea. Thanks for implementing it, ccgr. :)

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ArchAngel » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:52 pm

I was wondering if this would be better suited for the General Talk(more visibility, possibility of making subforums for the brand of debates: political, theological, scientific, etc) or General Discussion(less visibility, keeps the frontpage slimmer) forums.
This would move some of the more confrontational discussion out of the Spiritual Matters and Faith Talk forums and let that remain a more supportive and uplifting area.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Truthseeker
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Debates subforum

Postby Truthseeker » Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm

I don't mind a separate forum for debates in principle. One thing to keep in mind is that debates sometimes evolve naturally out of discussions that were not originally debates. Someone posts something, someone else has a different perspective on it, and then the two debate their points of view. If someone posts something in a different forum, and I have a different perspective I would like to present, does that mean I can't because the original thread was not posted in the debate forum? Or if I do post something, does that mean the whole thread has to be moved to the debate forum? Or if someone wants to debate a point that is in a thread outside of the debate forum, are they supposed to start a whole new thread in the debate forum to make that point?
Brokan Mok

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek . . . to be understood, as to understand.

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17384
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ccgr » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:57 pm

instead of derailing a topic one can just say hey let's start a debate on this. I just wanted a place to put lengthy discussions for people who enjoy reading walls of text.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:30 am

Walls of text? Nobody around here that I know of writes walls of text. 3

In fact, I'd venture to say that a wall of text is not only an ineffective means of communication because nobody wants to read a wall of text, but also means a person is so long winded that they love to read their own type, sort of the web version of people who talk a lot because they love to hear the sound of their own voice. Keep in mind the other disadvantage: You would prove that economy of language and felicity of speech are not attributes that you posses.

I remember back in college when I had an American History professor who pointed out that w hen turning in essays, he appreciated economy of language and felicity of speech. Essentially, he wanted us to be able to express our ideas in a clear, efficient manner that didn't require huge long essays that talked a lot and said very little. I admired the idea, and have tried, with varying degrees of success, to adhere to it, although I'll admit that I get pretty long winded on here.

I think the reason for getting long winded when writing replies in a forum, especially in a debate environment, is because it's really a lot harder to effectively communicate an idea, especially an abstract one, in this kind of environment. Human communication is 20% syntax and 80% tone and body language... So that means when you're posting on a forum all you have is the syntax... so at best, you're communicating at 20% of your normal effectiveness. It's easy to imagine why so often misunderstandings occur, or people become frustrated. You also never know how someone will interpret a given turn of phrase. For some of us, sarcasm can be an effort to inject a little levity into a serious subject, for others, it's considered very rude and insensitive. How can someone know how you meant it? How can you know how it'll be interpreted? Maybe if you knew the person well and they knew you well enough to correctly interpret your tone, but how often does that happen?

Add to that the unspoken assumption about web forum debates: The winner is the person who gets in the last word. Essentially we assume that when a person stops responding, it's because they've been beaten and have run out of ammunition for their arguments. That isn't necessarily true, of course... Often times people simply lose interest in the topic, or they stop posting because they're becoming too emotionally invested in the discussion and need to push back from the computer desk. It could also mean that they've simply made their point and see no reason to belabor it... but even so people (including myself) find it very difficult to stop without getting the last word, because of the desire for the moral victory which is, of course, imaginary and not really worthwhile anyway.

Sop ultimately what's the point of a long winded post? It's an effort to be clear, and overcome that 20% communication deficit. The problem is that writing a wall of text post is self-defeating because people rarely want to take time to read it all, and even when they do they'll probably just skim most of it and likely lose much of the meaning, which in turn only leads to more frustration and more and more walls of longer and longer waves of text... Which feeds the cycle and makes things worse and worse until the length of the posts begins to shorten as people start to become exasperated and lose interest in fighting... and yet will still keep posting to get in that last reply and "win" the debate.

So yeah, no wall of texts here. I don't know what you're talking about.

<<

>>

:mrgreen:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:53 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX

Re: Debates subforum

Postby brandon1984 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:59 am

LOL, I'm so happy you wrote that Arctic!

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Debates subforum

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:04 pm

Well played.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest