About debates on CFC OT

[Sanaz]

Americans generally like to win and be right, regardless of facts, truths, or legitimacy. Is this not true of people all over the world? No one remembers the loser, or the poor/illegal methods used by the winner. They only remember the winner. I think this is a human issue, not cultural.

 

[stratego]

Sometimes people misquote because they already have a built-in image of the personality of the other poster. So as they read the quote, they'll subconsciously try to fit it into the schema of what they believe the other poster is like.
Observe...

In my view - Misquoting shows a lack of brain-power by the misquoter.
...

There you go again with your anti-religion rhetoric

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I'm not sure how it's a 'misquote'. It just seems like the normal process of communication.

Example:
original text:

I have major problems with pork-barrel defense expense (example missile shield, b2 stealth bombers to some extent)

restated:

Excuse my bluntless, but I consider anyone who thinks of the B2 as mere pork to be an anti-defense extremist.

note how 'some extent' is changed to 'mere'!

Would a response of

Excuse my bluntless, but I consider anyone who thinks of the B2 as being pork, to some extent, to be an anti-defense extremist.

have changed the message of the response?

When people read posts are they required to digest every word of them? Is the reply still a misquote if the post was read as:

I have major problems with pork-barrel defense expense (example missile shield, b2 stealth bombers)

Just a couple words dropped off. Something that most people seem to do once they see the part of the post they want to respond to.

Also, by pulling out just sections of a post, you lose any context to the discussion which can account for much of the way someone interprets a post.

All this can be from people focusing on their reply once they read the original message to the speed in which they are trying to reply to an intentional change to bolster their post. How does anyone know which reason it may be?

As for it being predominately one culture or another, I have seen it done by almost everyone in OT, so I'd say it's fairly universal.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Example: a friend of mine had to write an essay for College. The topic was some tax or other. The instructions were plain English: Debate! (2 pages).
So went and did as taught (GER): naming the pros and cons, then weighing them and deciding what was the rigth position.

He got a D!
Reason: he was supposed (US!) to pick a position, name what supports it and be done with it.

American writing and debating style is subtly different from the Italian style (the only european style I can really speak of), but these subtle differences make a world of difference.
I have been living in the US for 6 years now. The worst about these cultural differences is that there is no guide, no good book to bridge the gap. Americans tell you that your cover letter, your disseratation, etc. are a bit off, and they can rewrite it for you, but they can't boil down what's wrong into simple rules

 

[MajII]

"What is it with people here that they can never read? Or, rather, that they can never quote a statement accurately?"

Because to some, if not many, winning the debate is the priority.

Few like to lose, and fewer still willingly admit mistakes.

It's an ego and image thing. Wish I could say I was beyond that, but ... hey ...

 

[Free Enterprise]

What is it with people here that they can never read? Or, rather, that they can never quote a statement accurately?

Often they do not want to quote or interpret the statement accurately.

So, is this culture of NON-debate the reason for the extreme amount of rethorics without sense in this forum?
Americans, please speak your mind - why are people so often obviously and intentionally misquoting others, which ruins the debate as it drags it away from the issue into side-battles that are totally useless!

There could be many things that cause this.

It could be a coincidence or merely a perception that may or may not be true. Perhaps (a more detailed explanation of the coincidence theory) the fact almost half the posters here are Americans gives a broad range of……. “debating styles”. Such tactics do exist in other countries however you rarely see them on this forum because....well it requires internet access and a computer, and ability to speak English, usually Civilization 3 and possibly some of its expansion packs.....

The more people have debated and experienced debates or read about debates on a subject the more capable they are of avoiding such transgressions. This is not at all to say that anyone is predisposed to make such errors. No, it is only experience that causes it not an innate failing. Anyone can acquire debating talents if trained right.

This situation does seem to bear a similarity to political campaigns and "debates" in the U.S. where each side screams distortions about the other.

Most probable theory: The "requirements to post on the boards are harder to meet in most countries other than the United States (and perhaps some other wealthy English speaking countries) theory".

 

[betazed]

@Duke: IMHO, a few words do make a lot of difference. I give the following examples which I have seen used (and I have myself used) and have seen to be misunderstood

When said "I can reasonably assume" - gets interpreted "I assume to be true"
When said "I think" - gets interpreted "I know"
When said "A implies B" - gets interpreted "A implies B and B implies A"
When said "I support A" - gets interpreted "I do not support B" { since usually A is seen as Not B erroneously }
When said "I support A" - gets interpreted "I support A only"

etc.

When people read posts are they required to digest every word of them?

No they are not required to. But it does not reflect highly of a poster when he(she) starts arguing against a certain pov without understanding its nuances. Typically, a well argued pov will have many nuances because seldom does real life throw situations at us that are purely black and white.

As to whether it is done intentionally or by pure oversight, I am not sure. IMO, it is a little bit of both I guess. Although I assume that for some posters it is more one that the other (ie my past experience in OT tells me that there are some posters who are too smart to not see the nuance, as there are some who are not smart enough to see it).

As for it being predominately one culture or another, I have seen it done by almost everyone in OT, so I'd say it's fairly universal.

The above statement assumes that all cultures are equally represented in OT, which is not provably true, and I can reasonably assume ( ) that it is not true. Hence, I am not sure it is universal. Empirically speaking, in some communities I have seen that I am personally rarely misunderstood.

 

[Megabyte]

Americans generally like to win and be right, regardless of facts, truths, or legitimacy. Is this not true of people all over the world? No one remembers the loser, or the poor/illegal methods used by the winner. They only remember the winner. I think this is a human issue, not cultural.

Hi !

I dont think people just remember who won , not why he/she won. Just think about the last presidential elections in the USA.The methods which were used to determine the president in the end are not forgotten (at least in the minds of the people i know)and shed a bitter light upon him and the election process.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I always quote exactly what people typed. Using the 'copy' and 'paste' functions, which I get to using my right mouse button. I answerpacific bits that people posted, if I only quote half of their post or something it is usually because I either can't think what to say or I can't bothered to debate it.

 

[Paradigne]

Funny... I just had a wallop of a misquote in another thread... I'm not even sure how it happened, but, obviously it was an accident

 

[FredLC]

I agree that people always try to divert the topic into a path that, despite not representing what the other debater actually said, they believe to be easier to beat. I think a good debater have to be ready to debunk this sort of strawman tact just like he has to be ready to debunk any other sorts of sophism.

Let me quote from this post I made in the how to debate thread:

4 - Keep your focus. See, debating polemic themes is a huge trap. Too many incidental matters to look into, and it's easy to get carried away by some. Also, it's a common strawman tactic to try luring a debater with a strong point in another area where his arguments are more easily refuted. Don't fall for either of that, and you will do better. Of course, that does not mean that other relevant issues that actually show up can't be looked upon, but it's important to keep the whole structure of your argument pointed at the most promissing direction.

As for me, not only I reply to the exact words said by the other debater (mispellings included), I always reply to the entirety of the post (rare exceptions when it's something altoghether irrelevant, and even so I use to announce what I'll let go, and why), exactly to avoid someone accusing me of doing that, or taking their words out of context.

Regards .

edit: Oh, forgot to add: I don't believe this tact is exclusive, or even particularly common, in the citzens of the US of A; I've seen people of all nationalities doing that, and of course, the more numerous fallacious debaters I've ever seen are Brazilians, for the simple reason that I debated with other Brazilians ten times more than with any other people else.

Maybe USA people look dominant in this tact here at CFC simply because there is a majority of them here, and, quite simply, the majority of people anywhere are not of good, logical debaters.

 

[Arminius]

Americans, please speak your mind - why are people so often obviously and intentionally misquoting others, which ruins the debate as it drags it away from the issue into side-battles that are totally useless!

led to

You are foolish if you believe this is only perpetrated by American posters. I can no longer count on one hand the number of times I have been misquoted or had my argument oversimplified by Europeans.

because of the implications of the bolded text. You made a point earlier that it happened mostly with Americans and then completely disregarded all others in your questioning of why. Thus he made an (incorrect, but forseeable) assumption that you were gently blaming Americans only.

As for why people misquote people. I think a lot goes back to the language. English is a very expressive language, but it overlaps itself sometime too intricately for even other English-speakers to understand what is meant.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

@Duke: IMHO, a few words do make a lot of difference. I give the following examples which I have seen used (and I have myself used) and have seen to be misunderstood

When said "I can reasonably assume" - gets interpreted "I assume to be true"
When said "I think" - gets interpreted "I know"
When said "A implies B" - gets interpreted "A implies B and B implies A"
When said "I support A" - gets interpreted "I do not support B" { since usually A is seen as Not B erroneously }
When said "I support A" - gets interpreted "I support A only"

These are more examples of how things can be interpreted, but does that mean they are wrong? When a discussion is comparing A to B, yes, saying you support A can mean you do not support B. That is a normal assumption in most cases. If it is not the case, it is usually up to the poster to convey the difference.

No they are not required to. But it does not reflect highly of a poster when he(she) starts arguing against a certain pov without understanding its nuances. Typically, a well argued pov will have many nuances because seldom does real life throw situations at us that are purely black and white.

As to whether it is done intentionally or by pure oversight, I am not sure. IMO, it is a little bit of both I guess. Although I assume that for some posters it is more one that the other (ie my past experience in OT tells me that there are some posters who are too smart to not see the nuance, as there are some who are not smart enough to see it).

That just seems to be a matter of semanics in a discussion. As I asked, would the modified response that was given before have made the message any different?

The above statement assumes that all cultures are equally represented in OT, which is not provably true, and I can reasonably assume ( ) that it is not true. Hence, I am not sure it is universal. Empirically speaking, in some communities I have seen that I am personally rarely misunderstood.

They don't need to be equally represented, but they do represent a wide range of cultures with a significant portion being from outside the US.

 

[betazed]

These are more examples of how things can be interpreted, but does that mean they are wrong?

yes, I do think they are wrong. If person 1 says

A implies B

and person 2 interprets this as

A implies B and B implies A

then I must say person 2 is making a mistake and is wrong (a logical and mathematical mistake).

When a discussion is comparing A to B, yes, saying you support A can mean you do not support B. That is a normal assumption in most cases. If it is not the case, it is usually up to the poster to convey the difference.

yes, it can be an assumption in many cases. But when you say "it is usually up to the poster to convey the difference" which poster do you mean? The one who made the assumption or the one who was quoted originally. I would lay the onus of explaining the assumption on the person who is doing the assuming.

That just seems to be a matter of semanics in a discussion. As I asked, would the modified response that was given before have made the message any different?

In that particular case I do think it made a difference (in the original discussion SN and I proceeded to clarify that point).

They don't need to be equally represented, but they do represent a wide range of cultures with a significant portion being from outside the US.

Agreed.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

yes, I do think they are wrong. If person 1 says

A implies B

and person 2 interprets this as

A implies B and B implies A

then I must say person 2 is making a mistake and is wrong (a logical and mathematical mistake).

So this would be an example of a 'misquote' then. I mentioned one exmple and how it could be correct, but another example that was not mentioned is brought up with the assumption that it was also considered correct.

A implies B and B implies A, as you have said, is a logical mistake. An 'I agree with A' in an A vs B discussion usually carries the implication that the person does not agree with B.

yes, it can be an assumption in many cases. But when you say "it is usually up to the poster to convey the difference" which poster do you mean? The one who made the assumption or the one who was quoted originally. I would lay the onus of explaining the assumption on the person who is doing the assuming.

In that particular case I do think it made a difference (in the original discussion SN and I proceeded to clarify that point).

The point is that it is all part of a 'normal' internet discussion. We don't have body language or a persons tone to help guide us in determining what their meaning is. Misunderstandings will happen. It seems odd to me that people would focus intently on a word or two out of a whole discussion, as all it seems to do is detract from the actual discussion.

 

[betazed]

So this would be an example of a 'misquote' then. I mentioned one exmple and how it could be correct, but another example that was not mentioned is brought up with the assumption that it was also considered correct.

Touche. I concede I made the mistake.

 

[betazed]

Ok, I am not quite done yet.

The point is that it is all part of a 'normal' internet discussion. We don't have body language or a persons tone to help guide us in determining what their meaning is. Misunderstandings will happen. It seems odd to me that people would focus intently on a word or two out of a whole discussion, as all it seems to do is detract from the actual discussion.

Since it is obvious that in an internet discussion we do not have body language and a persons tone to help, don't you think it is even more important that we precisely state what we think and precisely read what the other poster has written and precisely try to understand the nuances?

Yes, misunderstandings will happen. But shouldn't the focus on each and every word help minimizing the misunderstandings? So how does being precise detract from the actual discussion? It seems to me that it does just the opposite.

OTOH, I understand why you might find such precision (nit-picking?) tiring and distracting. You just have to bear with some of us who find being such nit-picky and choosy with words enjoyable.

In another vein I must say I like a judicious use of smilies. It helps to convey at least some emotional context.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I can see it if it is vital to the understanding of the discussion, but, to me, at least, the example given wasn't one I would consider a vital one. There's usually going to be some diversion of words here and there, but they normally don't detract from the meaning all that much.

From reading the examples, it seems that person A feels that some military programs are not worth the money and that Person B feels that one of the programs that was mention is worth the money. The level of worth (some extent vs mere) doesn't seem material to the discussion.


I also find it kind of ironic that the first post seems to do exactly what it is asking about.

Person B's post from the example:

Excuse my bluntless, but I consider anyone who thinks of the B2 as mere pork to be an anti-defense extremist.

Then from the post:

the misquote insinuates that Person A is a crazy anti-defense nut

So the words change from 'anti-defense extremist' to 'crazy anti-defense nut'.

 

[Fifty]

I haven't been a member here long enough, nor do I know the locations of everyone well enough, to say whether or not this is something perpetrated mainly by Americans, but I'll assume that it IS just because that is what the topic was about.

If quote misrepresentation is done mainly by Americans, here is my theory as to why:

We all know in American politics it is a two party system. One effect of both the two party system and the abundance of interest groups is everything is taken to extremes. You are either PRO LIFE or PRO CHOICE. You are either PRO WAR or ANTI WAR. You are either PRO GAY MARRIAGE or ANTI GAY MARRIAGE. You get the idea, and I'm sure you've all seen this. Because the ideologies of both political partys are so based in money and partisan garbage, everything has to be black or white, there is no grey area.

These extreme way of thinking will trickle down into the CFC population, because we tend to be politically aware. So even when a topic is created about something other then politics, it shifts into extremes (you are either a religious nutbag biblical literalist or an anti-religion atheist god hating wierdo).

Since every viewpoint is shifted into extremes, every quote will be shifted accordingly. In the example posted at the beginning of the thread, you are either FOR military spending, or AGAINST military spending.

It is as if every argument was a mountain, and every opinion was a boulder. even if you place your boulder just a tiny bit to one side of the mountain peak (the peak being completely neutral on the subject), it will roll down to either the far right or far left side of the mountain, whether you like it or not.



That's just my thoughts as to why I don't think its as much a conscious decision as some have said, its a subconscious effect of the tendancy to lump everything into black or white extremes.

 

[Mauer]

beguile-
1)to influence by guile; mislead
2)to take away from by cheating or deceiving
3)to charm or divert