What's wrong with a "poisonous" debate climate?

[Darth Wong]

I often hear people describe the debating climate here as "poisonous", because people jump all over you the minute you make a mistake. It is often assumed that this is a bad, undesirable, nasty, and possibly even shameful thing.

But is it? One of the ways that I know an argument is strong is if it's been tested with fire. If people are all playing "kid gloves" and "let's all get along", then one's arguments will not be put to the test. Therefore, when one goes out into the rest of the world and tries to use these arguments, there is a high probability that someone's going to come along and completely blind-side you with an attack that you never saw coming, because you're a hot-house flower. I want people to attack my arguments in a hostile fashion. Even if I don't change their minds or they don't change mine, I am strengthened by it.

Science is actually a lot like that: if you propose a new theory, the first thing everyone does is try to prove that you're wrong. The same thing goes for engineering, which also has a fairly negative atmosphere. Sure, in a professional environment people tend to avoid things like foul language and outright insults, but the same basic attitude is there: the minute you open your mouth, you know you will have to defend yourself against hostile criticism. It's not genial, warm or comforting.

So what's so bad about a "poisonous" debate atmosphere?

[Frank Hipper]

The only thing I can think of that's "wrong" with a "poisonous" climate is that some people might get overly emotional in their argumentation when attacked, and argue from positions other than rationality...

...but that's hardly a flaw with the climate, it's a flaw in the debator.

[Covenant]

I generally understand the concept of a 'poisonous debate' to be one that damages the issues and arguements as much as it has any chance of reaching an actual truthful conclusion. Such as the Medical Marijuana or Smoking Bans issues--where a lot of people start shovelling as much shit as they can into it, and the whole thing just falls apart into irrational, emotional debate that makes people (in general) look stupid when taken out of context by the Media.

I think the people describing this place as a 'poisonous debate climate' are mischaracterizing it. If you come in with an flamebait subject like, "Study Proves Religion Beneficial" and your primary source is like Evangelical Science Ministries or some bullshit organization, then no, it's not a poisonous debate, it's a gang-beating.

The debate atmosphere here is extremely antagonistic and fueled by a lot of personal indignation--which can make it frustrating, but these aren't polite times. I'm still not in favor of a lot of personal attacks, since it really is a bit distracting, but you hurt a debate a lot more by removing them than by leaving them in. A qualified debater can present his side of the facts even while being called a donkey-raping shit-eater. People are offended by these comments, but they're really irrelevent to the debate. I've never seen someone go "Well, the numbers he's posting add up, but he is a goblin-fucking son of a whore, so I don't believe him." Is it really so hard just to overlook a personal attack? Why is a silly personal attack any different from silly politeness? Neither have anything do do with the debate.

So I wouldn't call this poisonous. We don't distort the debate or the issues, and people who try to turn it into an emotional gut-reaction issue, like "But that's not fair--they're Black!" or "That's not fair--that's a Right!" or such things get chopped down pretty fast. The truth is independant of political correctness.

I don't think there's any benefit to a debate atmosphere described as 'poisonous,' but I don't think we apply. Here's one of the few times I can almost find a context for this retarded spawn-of-the-blogosphere word:

This is the vast middle ground position that average Americans long to hear and haven’t yet heard from candidates and officeholders. Neither the pro-choice nor pro-life forces make abortion reduction a focus of their messaging. One side sees abortion as a right; the other, as a sin. We suggest a message of abortion as a right that comes with responsibilities. This means that we, as a country, have a responsibility to do all we can to lower the astoundingly high rate of unintended pregnancies (the majority of which result in abortion). It means that we have a responsibility to help a pregnant woman who may want to have a child by giving her economic support and full information throughout her pregnancy continuing into motherhood. This approach neutralizes this poisonous debate and gives progressives the ability to seize the moral high ground.

It generally seems to fit with my definition, as far as I can tell. We don't get bogged down in the emotional sides of these debates if we can at all avoid it. Numbers, facts, those are the sorts of things that win debates. I've gotten jumped on a bit recently from a few different posts I've made, but if you just post some articles that express your ideas, people swing around, mostly.

This is something I do a lot though, try to reframe the debate. But even in the most broad sense, a 'poisonous debate' is only dangerous to the people who fly off the handle at being called a fuckwit. We allow this speech specifically because it is nonsensical and irrelevent. We do not allow anti-gay or racial slurs, because they are offensive. If someone is offended by being called a bullshitter, then they really have no place in an actual debate anyway.

[Darth Wong]

The only thing I can think of that's "wrong" with a "poisonous" climate is that some people might get overly emotional in their argumentation when attacked, and argue from positions other than rationality...

...but that's hardly a flaw with the climate, it's a flaw in the debator.

Indeed, I don't think anyone could consider himself a strong debater if he instantly wets himself and loses the ability to make rational arguments the moment someone insults him.

[Yogi]

Well if you go with the premise that politeness is not necessary, then certainly a poisinous atmosphere is not an obstical. Insults don't add anything to a debate, and it's a matter of personal opinion if they should be allowed because they're irrelavent or disallowed because they're irrelavent.

[Darth Wong]

Well if you go with the premise that politeness is not necessary, then certainly a poisinous atmosphere is not an obstical. Insults don't add anything to a debate, and it's a matter of personal opinion if they should be allowed because they're irrelavent or disallowed because they're irrelavent.

The problem is that people have all kinds of very clever ways of putting you down even if they don't come out and insult you. If you have much experience on "Miss Manners" forums, you will often find that you feel like you're personally under attack, despite the "Miss Manners" rules. It's just as annoying as a more direct insult, and if you can't handle a direct insult without getting all flustered and losing your ability to argue points, I can guarantee that you will eventually find yourself getting all discombobulated on a "Miss Manners" forum when someone starts politely needling you. Because it will happen; in fact I'd say it's virtually inevitable when you argue something like religion or politics.

[Cairber]

There are so many boards out there that limit this kind of thing yet allow disgusting underhanded attacks...and when you then attack back, your post gets deleted or the like.

Example: on a board I use to belong to, moms were allowed to say things about how gross uncut penises were, about how dirty, etcetc. And if you lashed back or used the term 'mutilation' your post would get deleted.

On the same board, people could make comments about stay at home moms..underhanded attacks that didn't fall under the moderators idea of 'personal attack' so they got to happen...and you could do nothing about it.

Here you can call it out and just say it like it is.


And, really, if your arguments can't stand here, they probably need to be re-examined. But that can sometimes piss people off, so they latch on to the personal attack thing and whine about that instead. I know I did at first.

[General Zod]

The problem is that people have all kinds of very clever ways of putting you down even if they don't come out and insult you. If you have much experience on "Miss Manners" forums, you will often find that you feel like you're personally under attack, despite the "Miss Manners" rules. It's just as annoying as a more direct insult, and if you can't handle a direct insult without getting all flustered and losing your ability to argue points, I can guarantee that you will eventually find yourself getting all discombobulated on a "Miss Manners" forum when someone starts politely needling you. Because it will happen; in fact I'd say it's virtually inevitable when you argue something like religion or politics.

Miss Manners forums are especially annoying. The moment you dare express an opinion contrary to the common opinion on a subject or attack their sacred cow, you start getting badgered as being hostile and even hateful if you use anything but the absolutely most polite tone of voice possible, which isn't a guarantee. Cthulhu forbid if you try criticizing someone's religion or "culture". They're probably the single worst examples of mindless middles in existence.

[aerius]

So what's so bad about a "poisonous" debate atmosphere?

Nothing, absolutely nothing. I've seen countless forums where they discourage our style of debating, and the results suck every single time. After a few months to a few years there's no more useful discussion or information, they end up with a "everyone's opinion is equally valid" rule where people are free to spew the most retarded bullshit imaginable, and they do. At which point most or all of the forum members who actually have a brain end up leaving or get banned. The quality of discussion and information goes down the crapper.

On this board and some of the better boards I'm on, I've been called a dumb shit at least a dozen times. And that's fine, since I'm not going to take it personally, and in many of those cases I was a bit of an idiot in hindsight. It's done, it's in the past, and I've learned something and hopefully I'm not going to make the same dumbass mistake again.

[Chardok]

I think alot of people confuse debate with teaching.

Debating here is simple, don't spout a bunch of shit off unless you know what you're talking about; and if you don't, leave that debate to those who do.

I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong with the atmosphere here, personally, or that there is anything intrinsically wrong with a "poisonous" one. People confuse poisoned with learned, I think, as well. It's not as if we have people lurking in the shadows, waiting for the weak to show themselves so that we can pounce on them. It just so happens that there are alot of people here who are very smart, know their shit, and will not allow their area of expertise to be raped by some second-rate Wikipedia-quoting internet zombie who purports to be an expert at something they're not. If you ask me, more places should be like this, not less. It'd certainly cut down on the amount of BS I have to put up with every day.

And anyway, with the anti-vendetta rule in place, I can go into a thread, and get into a vicious flamewar with, Say, Nitram, and in another thread; say, a paranoia discussion thread, me and Nit will act like we're sitting around having a couple brewskis watching the game. That's what I like about this place. Debates and idiocy are left in the threads in which they reside.

Also, Fuck you.

Fucking fucker.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I don't see anything poisonous about SDN's debate atmosphere. If anything, it's a crucible for smelting the valuable knowledge and enlightenment out of the ore of debate. As for what we do with the useless dregs, clinkers, and slag, well, gaze upon the South Gate.

EDIT: LOL, I'm a poet and I didn't know it *zing!*

[Kanastrous]

Insults are noise that doesn't contribute anything to a conversation. Basically cheap easy lazy nonsense that probably feels good while one is typing it, that has no positive utility beyond that.

For whatever it's worth, I'm personally a great fan of courtesy, since I think it promotes clearer communication. Courtesy doesn't mean rolling over and wetting yourself the moment you see an opposing argument, or validating an argument you find flawed, just to 'get along'; it just means refraining from empty pointless name-calling when you find fault with someone's argument, or don't care for the position they have adopted.

Someone demolishes my position on something with an argument, fine; one way or another I stand to learn something from that. Someone just gets off on calling me names, well, there are much better ways to use my time, than reading nasty blather from which I stand to learn nothing.

I don't think a board has to have rules to enforce courtesy if that's how the mods like it, but I do sort of hope that people will stick to some level of courtesy, just out of good manners, and a desire not to come off like a pack of ten-years-olds giggling as they lob insults at other people, from safely outside swinging range.

YMMV.

[Shinova]

In a non-serious environment like a message board, SDN's debating style's fine and sometimes nice, but in the real world I find that you really have no choice but to play nice and sensitive with everyone if you want to even remotely succeed in anything that involves working with other people.

It shouldn't be, and people shouldn't be afraid to be called wrong and have their feelings hurt, but the consequences are too great to risk it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Well, Kanastrous, the only flaw with that is we do have rules against random insults. It's called the 'Ad Hominem' logical fallacy. We don't attack someone with names, we refute the argument they present with logic, reason, and facts; and only then do we start firing insults to inject some heat. Refer back to the 'crucible' theory I've come up with.

[Darth Wong]

Where do you draw the line between an empty insult and an accurate characterization? The fact is that despite the feelgood rhetoric, there is such a thing as a stupid question, and when you see someone ask such a question, is it an "insult" to say that it's a stupid question or it is a fair description? If someone spouts some kind of truly idiotic bullshit like the "2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution" argument, is it an "insult" to say that he's obviously a scientific ignoramus, or is it an accurate statement?

The Internet is this bizarre world where 15 year olds think they can argue with medical doctors about medicine, refute licensed engineers about engineering, and tell doctorate-level scientists they're completely wrong about science. If no one is ever allowed to tell anyone that he's obviously an arrogant dumbshit who should shut the fuck up about things he doesn't understand, then you find yourself having to politely explain things to people who A) don't understand anyway and B) are too arrogant to listen. And why should you be forced to put in that effort, when they don't deserve it?

[Kanastrous]

people shouldn't be afraid to be called wrong and have their feelings hurt, but the consequences are too great to risk it.

A response telling me that I'm wrong doesn't bother me.

A response calling me an ignorant short-dicked uneducated donkey-fucking moron does feel like I'm wasting my time, reading it. Accuracy of the response, notwithstanding.

[Darth Wong]

people shouldn't be afraid to be called wrong and have their feelings hurt, but the consequences are too great to risk it.

A response telling me that I'm wrong doesn't bother me.

A response calling me an ignorant short-dicked uneducated donkey-fucking moron does feel like I'm wasting my time, reading it. Accuracy of the response, notwithstanding.

How many seconds of your life do you waste reading that, as opposed to "You're wrong and you obviously don't know what you're talking about", which is the polite version?

[Kanastrous]

Well, Kanastrous, the only flaw with that is we do have rules against random insults. It's called the 'Ad Hominem' logical fallacy. We don't attack someone with names, we refute the argument they present with logic, reason, and facts; and only then do we start firing insults to inject some heat. Refer back to the 'crucible' theory I've come up with.

Been posting here less than one week and can provide you with examples of empty ad-homs tossed my way, already.

I dig the concept of a crucible fired by truth-seeking, rigorous logic and the kind of extensive educational base that I see around here.

A crucible fired by playground-grade insult-noise doesn't appear worthwhile, to me.

But that's just me. I don't propose that anything around here ought to change, for the comfort of a newbie like myself.

[General Zod]

Been posting here less than one week and can provide you with examples of empty ad-homs tossed my way, already.

You do realize that ad hominems are not merely insults in and of themselves, yes?

[Ghost Rider]

To put it blunt, the enviroment is fine...some people use it as the only way to talk around here(a mark of retard) or get in over their head. Compared to most forums, though? I'd rather have the blunt end, then everyone being miss manners and using veiled statements such as anyone who disagrees with such and such is an analphabet or other such lovliness.

As for being polite, I am more disgusted by how people go "I'd never say...". Sure you won't, but don't tell me you don't snigger, smirk, or cock an eyebrow when someone does something inane or dumb. Just because you aren't telling them "You're a fucking idiot." doesn't mean your body language isn't there. One learns far before you encounter other children what to lie to one's face and what one really means by either inflection or body language.

[Kanastrous]

people shouldn't be afraid to be called wrong and have their feelings hurt, but the consequences are too great to risk it.

A response telling me that I'm wrong doesn't bother me.

A response calling me an ignorant short-dicked uneducated donkey-fucking moron does feel like I'm wasting my time, reading it. Accuracy of the response, notwithstanding.

How many seconds of your life do you waste reading that, as opposed to "You're wrong and you obviously don't know what you're talking about", which is the polite version?

I'm more inclined to see you're wrong and here's why as the polite version, rather than the 'you don't know what you're talking about' bit. It will become clear enough that I don't know what I am talking about, in any given conversation, once you've laid on the logical smackdown and demonstrated it to be the case.

Again, I don't mean to suggest that anything needs to change. If I found the smack-talk to be intolerable instead of just annoying, I wouldn't be here.

[Darth Wong]

I tend to tailor my level of civility to the level that I think the other person deserves. I don't know why some people are incapable of doing this; they insist that there should be a blanket rule applied to everyone. But you can tell when someone is trying to listen to what you're saying, even if they're not necessarily agreeing with you, and you can tell when someone is just spouting cookie-cutter arguments at you.

That, to me, is a severe form of disrespect: just repeating yourself no matter what the other person says. It's like the schoolyard taunt where you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la la". And it's completely permissible on every Miss Manners forum I've ever seen, and no one is allowed to say "fuck off" no matter how much the person does it.

[Ghost Rider]

A response telling me that I'm wrong doesn't bother me.

A response calling me an ignorant short-dicked uneducated donkey-fucking moron does feel like I'm wasting my time, reading it. Accuracy of the response, notwithstanding.

How many seconds of your life do you waste reading that, as opposed to "You're wrong and you obviously don't know what you're talking about", which is the polite version?

I'm more inclined to see you're wrong and here's why as the polite version, rather than the 'you don't know what you're talking about' bit. It will become clear enough that I don't know what I am talking about, in any given conversation, once you've laid on the logical smackdown and demonstrated it to be the case.

Again, I don't mean to suggest that anything needs to change. If I found the smack-talk to be intolerable instead of just annoying, I wouldn't be here.

We had a poster like that, his name was Robert Walper. Everytime you debated him, he was a fucking retard who didn't grasp WHEN you told him in civil tones why he was wrong.

After a bit, you just wailed inot him because you realize he doesn't deserve your respect to be civil and need the blunt end of the stick.

So, one gauges differently. Some posters are more fiesty and hair trigger then Mike ever will be, some aren't. In the end, too many have tried constant civility and realized unless absolutely needed, no point when the moron will not do the other half of the equation of a debate.

[Darth Wong]

I'm more inclined to see you're wrong and here's why as the polite version, rather than the 'you don't know what you're talking about' bit.

The former is superior, but it also takes more effort. Every time someone gets into a debate, he has to decide if the argument he's been presented is worth that kind of effort.

Or to put it another way, while it would be admirable to respond to a 10-second dumbshit half-ass argument with a 15 minute detailed write-up and explanation, I don't think any reasonable person would call it an obligation.

[Kanastrous]

Well, like I said, I'm just tossing an opinion into the pot. If I found that the quality of the discourse around here didn't make the trash-talk worth wading through, I'd be elsewhere.

You bastards.