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

[Tee Kay]

I don't know, a good dit is often more interesting.

And some stats are faked/misinterpreted.

 

[GenMarshall]

Likes:
- Ability to admit one's wrong

Dislikes:
- People still hammering at me or pushing the issue after when I admit something wrong
- Gangbangs
- Generalizations

 

[Antilogic]

- People still hammering at me or pushing the issue after when I admit something wrong

This usually happens in long threads where people jump in on one particular comment and don't read the whole discussion. Annoying, but there is no easy remedy for it.

I usually quote myself from earlier and throw down a smiley.

 

[Rashiminos]

Admire:

-Ability to conceive of an argument one does not personally agree with, and the patience to attempt to understand the arguments of others.

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.

As this quote somewhat pertains to one of my admirable points:

Devil's advocates are usually apt to find holes in simplistic arguments which can be strengthened with additional reasoning. They can serve as a valuable resource in elevating the quality of the debate when they are not "arguing for the sake of arguing." They can also destroy bad arguments when needed.

Dislike:
-People who speak in absolute terms without making absolute arguments. If you want that sort of rigor, follow the conventions of fields that attempt to achieve it

For example: Math, not science.

 

[Mark1031]

Likes:

Clever people trolling each other. You know who I'm talking about.

Dislikes:

Moderation of said people.

 

[Rashiminos]

Admire:
-When the touch and go reaches a satisfying conclusion for at least more than one of the parties involved.
-Interesting Avatars

Dislike:

People aren't willing enough to troll people or posts who deserve it. That's annoying.

There's a reason for that. That's also annoying.
-Memetic Avatars (Eagle-face)

 

[IglooDame]

Would any mods like to post? I'd like to see what the mods say (other than "not breaking any rules" obviously )
Edit: Ex-moderators count too!

Not much different than most others here. But yeah, "not breaking any rules" - I (and I'd say 'we' to at least some extent) have a tendency to not get engaged in discussions that are likely to go off the rails because either we have to quietly back out and have another moderator address infractions, continue discussing and appear to be tacitly approving of infraction-worthy behavior, or put our mod hat on in-thread and usually get accused of bias/favoritism/etc when giving infractions to people we disagreed with in the discussion.

 

[Rashiminos]

I was reading the homeless feeders arrested thread when I thought of this dislike:

-Attempting to re-argue points in a long thread in lieu of reading the thread and referring to or quoting better versions of the argument that occurred earlier in thread. That being said, I can certainly understand the temptation of avoiding several hundred posts to reach the point where one wants to jump in.