Christ Centered Gamer

I'm going to vote to keep it, This thread has turned into a debate lol and leads me to believe we need a place to debate. I for one do not like debating but I do like the exchange of info by sharing ideas.

I was an admin on a chat room a friend of mine made where we could talk about anything no matter how strange. The point was to learn from each other. My friend tried to talk about these things in christian forums and in atheistic forums and was booted out of both because there were not open to new ideas. I learned a lot there. We kicked out anyone who would attack anyone's ideas or attack them personally. The point was to exchange info without ridicule and feeling unwelcome. We would explore the ideas on our own later to see what they were all about and if implementing them in our lives would help or hurt us.

My time there taught me to spot people that were there to cause trouble and they were booted fast.

I think the debate thread should have a pass word and be monitored, and anyone who cannot respect the other person should be booted. That comes from my own experience.

There is always room for debate as long as it's respectful.

But this means more work for the forum mods.

that's a good post M.

Well it would appear that this forum should stay. yeah!

The debates are not liked by everyone so I think we should establish what we would like to debate about if it's going to move to General Discussions. Religion is already a heated topic and I don't want to throw politics into the mix.

I like the debate team idea where only members who want to participate see the forums. I think making a sticky post with a roster of debaters and some basic info like

ccgr:
views: conservative
religion: non-denominational Christian
debate rank: medium weight

It's nice to know who we're debating with but it will also determine the interest and future of the debate forum. If its one Christian vs 10 atheists, sorry but I don't think that's a level playing field. If things are more evened out it could stay and possibly be enhanced to do Iron Chef style battles where a person picks their challenger (in the same self assigned rank) and debate on a random topic picked by the chair person. Thoughts?

Having more formalized debates like that could be fun, but there is something to be said for a free-for-all exchange of ideas. Often, a new person enters a debate with some great ideas and points.

it was just an idea...but the main point is that I don't want people to feel ganged up on.

I see your point on that.
Ganging up is a pretty unfair situation; it's challenging enough to respond to one person, two people can be a bit daunting, and over 3-4, it starts becoming near impossible. Even if you can keep yourself from feeling overwhelmed, it's just a lot of material to answer to.
It might be hard to moderate to keep it out, due to the flexible nature of conversation, but a mod stepping in an encouraging some people to take a little break if a person is expected to answer three or more people after their post. Not stop the debate, but ease the flow up.

I have some mixed feelings about a heavy weight debater going on a light weight.
On one hand, most people think they are entitled to voicing their own opinion on a subject, and they are, but don't realize that goes hand in hand with having your opinion critiqued, analyzed, and potentially debunked. A light weight who doesn't understand this, in a sense, needs it all the more. In this sense, I don't really hold back on people and I let them know what I think. They might think it's unfair or even bullying, but is it, when I take their opinion more serious than they do?
Now, on the other hand, you know, it's daunting to go against a stronger, more confident debater, and sometimes that can cause emotions to shutdown reason. So, with some people, I try to state my points with a little more ease. They aren't used to blunt responses(to which I proceed with people like Brandon and Arctic, because I know they can take it), so I try to be a little more tactful with them. Unfortunately, any politeness or kindness that comes from that isn't out of respect. Now, I hope nobody comes to the conclusion that if I was polite to them sometime in some past debate, I thought they were of weaker constitution, it's not. My tact, and lack of, is of a complicated equation that even I'm not fully aware of.
And, on the proverbial third hand, I really do want to list my debate rank as Heavy Weight.

ccgr wrote:Since this a Christian site, I thought it would be fitting to freely discuss religious issues here. It's no secret that some of the debates here have gotten a bit heated. While the debates can be great for learning and sharpening our faith, they can also be disheartening to young believers. As a member, do you think we should keep this forum or drop it. Feel free to vote anonymously or post your input below. Thanks for sharing your input.

In Him,
Cheryl

As I read several articles, I am reminded of a sign above my computer that says "THINK"
Is it:
True?
Helpful?
Inspiring?
Necessary?
Kind?

In short, I think if we tolerate others, share beliefs without flaming back and forth, we just might learn something that will help us in our journey back home. I have always felt that if we focused more on what we have in common, and less on our differences, we could then share our beliefs with conviction, instead sometimes it feels like we are wielding a club to "knock some sense" into others.

When posting we should keep Ephesians 4:29 in mind.

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."(NIV)

Its a good habit to always have This in mind.


yes totally keep both thinks on he fourm

I voted to get rid of debates, only because I was burned recently, and that can be pretty hard. If I were to participate more often, I can see my stress levels rising, which given my already stressful/busy life, I'm not sure if I could make enough time or emotional energy for. However, with that said, reflecting on the issue as a whole some more, I can see the value in debates. Iron sharpens Iron, as the Bible says. But I agree that either hiding it with login perms/groups, or doing something to prevent ganging up can be important.

The problem, as I see it, is if we don't have enough strong people on both sides, it can be rather harsh to those still in the fight on the minority side. And when I say minority, I do not mean quantity necessarily, but those who are good debaters. Spending hours (I don't know about you, but that's what happens to me when I post pretty much anything longer than a small paragraph) researching and responding to difficult topics can sometimes be helpful, but it also requires a fair amount of time where the participant is ready to invest in it. And it can often feel like a waste of time if those involved would never likely change their mind anyhow. So it's a tricky thing.

What what am I really getting at? If we can find dedicated debaters that are both Spiritually grounded, and our friends who present other perspectives, and understand their role and are there when things get tough, I can see real value in it. But if it's always the same few people in a one sided debate, then its value is lost in my opinion. And yes, we should make efforts to protect the young Christians.

IBJamon

The above? I +1 it.

ArchAngel wrote:I see your point on that.
Ganging up is a pretty unfair situation; it's challenging enough to respond to one person, two people can be a bit daunting, and over 3-4, it starts becoming near impossible. Even if you can keep yourself from feeling overwhelmed, it's just a lot of material to answer to.
It might be hard to moderate to keep it out, due to the flexible nature of conversation, but a mod stepping in an encouraging some people to take a little break if a person is expected to answer three or more people after their post. Not stop the debate, but ease the flow up.

I wonder if it would be reasonable (from both human and forum software management perspectives) to create, as has been suggested, a 'debate team' group with its own subfora and 'lead' members authorized to moderate and organize the debate forum. So for example if a topic is opened and a dozen people enter the discussion but it quickly devolves into two distinct discussions between two pairs a debate team moderator not involved in the discussion can split the topic out into two threads. If someone is fielding multiple participants the topic could, again, be split into multiple threads so that the underdog can concentrate on a single response and dismiss the others until such time as he is ready to deal with them.

This would naturally lead to a proliferation of threads which may encourage the creation of further subfora by topic, but conscientious moderation by debate team mods would, I think, maintain overall order? Not every discussion will be so easily maintained of course and there's value in open form discussion.

IBJamon wrote:I voted to get rid of debates, only because I was burned recently, and that can be pretty hard. If I were to participate more often, I can see my stress levels rising, which given my already stressful/busy life, I'm not sure if I could make enough time or emotional energy for. However, with that said, reflecting on the issue as a whole some more, I can see the value in debates. Iron sharpens Iron, as the Bible says. But I agree that either hiding it with login perms/groups, or doing something to prevent ganging up can be important.

Thank you for that honesty and the deep consideration you've given the question.

IBJamon wrote:The problem, as I see it, is if we don't have enough strong people on both sides, it can be rather harsh to those still in the fight on the minority side. And when I say minority, I do not mean quantity necessarily, but those who are good debaters. Spending hours (I don't know about you, but that's what happens to me when I post pretty much anything longer than a small paragraph) researching and responding to difficult topics can sometimes be helpful, but it also requires a fair amount of time where the participant is ready to invest in it. And it can often feel like a waste of time if those involved would never likely change their mind anyhow. So it's a tricky thing.

Debate, as I see it, isn't about changing minds. Oh of course formal debate is scored by minds changed (or can be) but to me the value of debate is threefold and doesn't necessarily involve a change of heart or mind.
First it offers a valuable exchange of ideas and perspective. I know or know of things you don't and vice versa. When we lay these facts and ideas out before each other and consider them critically we learn about the world and our fellow humans.
Second it offers an opportunity to sharpen your intellect, your prose, and your logic. Self improvement, in several arenas, by pitting yourself in friendly competition. The key word is of course friendly.
Finally it is a tool to explore your own beliefs and to test your understanding of them. When forced (figuratively and in an accepting environment) to confront your own beliefs and defend them sometimes you discover that they have weaknesses you weren't aware of. Sometimes you discover that what you thought was a weakness is not. This isn't necessarily changing minds but more deeply understanding what is there. Examination is to life as debate is to opinion.

Definitely agree with the time and effort component.

IBJamon wrote: What what am I really getting at? If we can find dedicated debaters that are both Spiritually grounded, and our friends who present other perspectives, and understand their role and are there when things get tough, I can see real value in it. But if it's always the same few people in a one sided debate, then its value is lost in my opinion.

One sided debates are an oxymoron Yes, if it turns into a place where any statement made is viciously torn down for no reason other than simply to tear it down then there's no real value in it. I don't think that's what will happen.

tgvern wrote:

ccgr wrote:Since this a Christian site, I thought it would be fitting to freely discuss religious issues here. It's no secret that some of the debates here have gotten a bit heated. While the debates can be great for learning and sharpening our faith, they can also be disheartening to young believers. As a member, do you think we should keep this forum or drop it. Feel free to vote anonymously or post your input below. Thanks for sharing your input.

In Him,
Cheryl

As I read several articles, I am reminded of a sign above my computer that says "THINK"
Is it:
True?
Helpful?
Inspiring?
Necessary?
Kind?

In short, I think if we tolerate others, share beliefs without flaming back and forth, we just might learn something that will help us in our journey back home. I have always felt that if we focused more on what we have in common, and less on our differences, we could then share our beliefs with conviction, instead sometimes it feels like we are wielding a club to "knock some sense" into others.

Well said.

And also to you Xbox

IBJamon I had to take a brake from a debate I was doing because of the added stress and the time I had to put into it. I have a lot of stress IRL atm and not a lot of time. I decided I cannot devote that much time to formulate a good answer when the only benefit I get back is more stress and less time to do other things that need doing LOL.

keep! Dont be mad if someone disagrees with u.

-Moooo

EarthCow wrote:Dont be mad if someone disagrees with u.

-Moooo

Listen to this guy (or gal), he (or she) speaks wisdom.

Perhaps, if it may be put... If someone disagrees with you, don't have a beef with them but rather ruminate on it?
Unless it's a moot point, of course.