What qualities do you admire and not admire in an CFC debate?

Qualities I admire:
  • Being willing to be playful & human, not just being a jerk & going tit for tat. It's nice to pause & show some humanity once in awhile.
  • Being able to see the issue from different angles even if ultimately they disagree with my perspective.
  • Not being a jerk.

Ones I don't admire:
  • Being obnoxious
  • Stupid analogies
  • Telling me to move to Somalia
  • Deliberately confusing the issues I care about (for example if I love the Earth it must mean I hate humans/technology/etc. :confused:
  • Talking as if there opinion (often about a subject they clearly just learned about) is objective truth.
  • Misuse of language (like the word objective)
  • Dissing Tom Petty! :mad:
 
Let's see, here are the likes:
  • Well-informed and thoughtful analysis.
  • Good book recommendations.
  • Relatively short and insightful posts.
  • Have sources in mind, able to back up statements.
  • And a little bit of humor--I don't take life too seriously, I don't think anyone should.

And dislikes... basically the opposite:
  • Talking point statements--show some originality or at least the reason behind them. It's not TV, and believe it or not you will have my attention for more than 10 seconds.
  • Thoughtless posting or childishness. If I am giving others the courtesy of more than 10 seconds of attention, I expect others to spend at leas that much time thinking about what they want to say.
  • Parroting insults or hypocrisy: i.e. saying someone else hasn't backed up his statements when he has posted links to official sources and the moron in question has only linked to an angry columnist.
  • Analogies. I generally don't accept these as valid arguments.
  • Mirror image fallacy. Generally, fallacies don't fly here, but this one is particularly annoying. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm your evil twin with a goatee.

Needless to say, I generally hate myself. :) I feel like I try to follow this formula but fall short.
 
One of the things I like in a CFC debate is the idea that statistics and articles and statements of fact are expected to be backed up by links to reputable sources. I've never appreciated this as much over the years as I have lately, when I've been spending a lot of time on the Care2 community. There are several regulars there who would put the worst troll behavior here to shame, and who never provide sources for the outlandish things they say. If those people posted here, they'd have earned a ban already (I've only been a regular there for about a month to notice this behavior). Finally I called one of them out and said that I belong to a gaming forum where the members wouldn't dream of not posting links - so why can't she post links to back up her assertions?

No response yet... :rolleyes:
 
Valka D'Ur said:
One of the things I like in a CFC debate is the idea that statistics and articles and statements of fact are expected to be backed up by links to reputable sources. I've never appreciated this as much over the years as I have lately, when I've been spending a lot of time on the Care2 community. There are several regulars there who would put the worst troll behavior here to shame, and who never provide sources for the outlandish things they say. If those people posted here, they'd have earned a ban already (I've only been a regular there for about a month to notice this behavior). Finally I called one of them out and said that I belong to a gaming forum where the members wouldn't dream of not posting links - so why can't she post links to back up her assertions?

No response yet... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Amazon discussion boards are like that too, especially the political-themed ones. They have virtually no moderation, people are nowhere near as civil over there. I don't visit them any more. Posters are also subject to harassment and hacking from people they have disagreed with.

Believe it or not, sometimes gaming forums are better for discussing serious issues. :)
 
My serious issue trumps your insignificant issue. No source cited. Deal with it :)

I capslocked that.... but I guess it doesn't work in CFC.
 
Narz said:
Ones I don't admire:
  • Dissing Tom Petty! :mad:
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.

Valka D'Ur said:
One of the things I like in a CFC debate is the idea that statistics and articles and statements of fact are expected to be backed up by links to reputable sources. I've never appreciated this as much over the years as I have lately, when I've been spending a lot of time on the Care2 community. There are several regulars there who would put the worst troll behavior here to shame, and who never provide sources for the outlandish things they say. If those people posted here, they'd have earned a ban already (I've only been a regular there for about a month to notice this behavior). Finally I called one of them out and said that I belong to a gaming forum where the members wouldn't dream of not posting links - so why can't she post links to back up her assertions?

No response yet... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've had some really hilarious and disjointed debates on other forums. I remember once some really weird libertarian (I think he was a bit mentally unstable) posted about the huge snowstorm in Washington DC meaning climate change was fake. I refuted it in a rather lengthy, detailed post. And all he did was post another news snippet and go "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THEY FOOLED EVERYONE" or something along those lines. Never even responded to mine. I assume I pwned him.
 
Admire:
-When someone's willing to enter a discussion with an open-mind; they're there to form a more well-rounded opinion more than to spout one.
-When you post with the assumption that those you're replying to are approaching the topic with an open-mind. It means you leave out unnecessarily nastiness that inevitably just detracts from any point you may have.

Don't admire:
-People who don't get the distinction between a discussion on a serious topic and SRS BSNS. Only the latter requires teeth gnashing.
-Throwaway comments that just repeat buzzwords and talking points without actually adding anything.
 
I admire:
- People who are open-minded... but not gullible.
- People who know to separate issues and posters, and not put words into people's mouths.
- People who can distinguish between facts, speculation, and opinion, and informed/reasonable and uninformed/unreasonable variants thereof.
- People who can express themselves in a concise but informative manner (not too short, not TLDR, exceptions exist).
- downtown
- People with a sense of humour who writes amusing posts, and who doesn't take everything seriously all the time.
- People who know when their argument is refuted, and concede (or at least stop beating a dead horse).
- People who can spell and use acceptable grammar.
- People who DON'T use overgeneralisations or overexaggerations to make their points.
 
- People who DON'T use overgeneralisations or overexaggerations to make their points.
Click to expand...

Did he just generalise about generalisers?

Serious note:

It's always good to have a reasonably light-hearted debate that neither party takes too seriously. The best ones on here often contain liberal doses of 'ah, well done' or 'good point' and most definitely don't contain personal insults. It probably helps to stay away from arguments on contentious issues, though - something I'm not very good at.
 
This is inspired by other posts so far.

Like:
  • Nuanced arguments that differ from the common ones.

Dislike:
  • Walls of text.
  • Posters who give up and drop out of a discussion. I can understand it, but I wish they wouldn't.
  • Hyperbole. Though I did use it myself recently :blush:.
  • People who get angry over what others post. It's ok to have passionate opinions, but not to get angry when others disagree.
  • Pigeonholing.
  • Prematurely demanding sources. I come to CFC to discuss my views, not to write well sourced essays. Sources should only be demanded if statements contradict a source someone else posted.
  • Using a link in place of an argument.
 
Like:
  • Pushing ideas to the limit- I've always held the opinion that an idea is only as good as its extremes
  • Keeping away from logical fallacies
  • Humor, but with the caveat that it isn't mockery of the opponent, but rather good-natured humor everyone appreciates
  • Ability to admit error

Dislike:
  • Devil's advocates- unlike some other people who have posted so far I think the only true stubborness or 'arguing for the sake of arguing' comes from those who are devil's advocates.
  • Stereotyping :mad:
  • Circumlocutions
  • tl;dr's
  • People who are just around to mock/ troll- Can't say I haven't been guilty of this myself.
  • Arguments excessively steeped in religious/nationalistic delusion
  • Gangbangs- where three,five,ten people all debate against one person. Utterly unfair, especially when combined with tl;dr's.
 
Like:

-Ability to admit one's wrong. I've had to do it a few times, if subtly.
-Not being too long, but not being too short, either. Long posts, even the well-written ones, quickly bore. Short ones neglect points.
-A willingness to be silly and humorous as much as serious. It keeps things refreshing and makes one seem less like a robot.

Dislike:

-Yeah, I agree that generalising everyone is just annoying. I have more than once been called a "liberal" and I can't help but laugh.
-Making things personal.
-Semantics wars. No I don't care if x means y where you live, x means z where I live, so there.
-Ageism. I've never been a victim of it(at least directly), but it annoys the hell out of me.
-Bringing up Nazis where not appropriate
-1984. If this is brought up, I am immediately disillusioned.
-When people don't actually read your post, but read a few parts of it and assume they know the rest. This is usually based on convenient black and white labelling.
-Not actually contributing anything to the discussion, but merely trolling, no matter how obvious or subtle
 
Like:
Posts which use stats to back up their points.

Dislike:
Posts which cite anecdotal evidence to back up their points.
 
Good

An argument that's not too long.
Some Humor.
Being able to admit your wrong, or at least stop arguing at that point.

Bad

TL,DR
Humor that covers stuff like genocide.
Reading only part of a post and assuming the rest.
Stereotypes.
'Move to [insert hellhole here]'
Over-exaggerating
Nationalism/Religionism(is that even a word?) glossing over atrocities that your nation/religion did, while exaggerating what another nation/religion did.
Over-stubbornness
 
i have a short attention span. i want scary graphs and diagrams, gripping pictures and powerful punchlines, catchphrases and one-liners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kyriakos
Good examples of literary twists (thread may contain spoilers)
Replies
18
Views
7K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Xefjord
Civ 7 and Ara: A Cross Comparison 100 hours in.
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
6K
KayAU
KayAU
Angst
Green policy makers and dirty consumption
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Farm Boy
Farm Boy
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (6-52) Always (or Never) Include Laborers In The Set Of Specialists
Replies
6
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
A
Congress #7: azum4roll's Voting Record
Replies
5
Views
1K
azum4roll
A
Back
Top Bottom