I wasn’t here when Peterson et al hung out here. The little I have read looks more like a scrum than a debate.
There are people that I think could have a good, substantive debate across the LDS-critic divide, but the numbers are few. Mutual respect required.
So, I guess my recollection of debates is fuzzy, but I don’t know that I have ever been impressed by their outcome. I recall a lot of sophistry, speakers using their time strategically to hold the floor, audiences coming away with the same opinion they had when they arrived.
Sure, it can seem more buttoned-down and genteel, but is much really accomplished beyond providing an audience a diversion? Maybe discourse has been broken down so long that I am unable to reach back to recover the memory of the golden age of debate. Moot court wasn’t that inspiring either.
I dunno. I am fairly happy with my entire experience here. I get different things from arguments with different kinds of people. So, I agree with ceeboo to an extent, but we are still able to mix it up pretty nicely with a predominantly ex-Mo group, in my opinion. If things get boring, I am always able to irritate someone to death.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
As to the main topic, I agree with the point healthy debate requires good faith and trust to the extent both parties have to feel they are able to present their views without the house tipping the balance. But I disagree that message boards make poor places for debate because I believe in human psychology. The only people genuinely persuadable are typically those without much of an opinion to begin with. So informed debate almost always has to be between two parties who are largely unpersuadable. The fruit of healthy debate isn't conversion of an opponent. The fruit is the exposure of the issues that comes from two sides engaging in good faith to expose the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument.
I’ve found over the years that most people don’t actually read. They skim, if that. In many cases I don’t even see a poster skim, they jump to a part of a post, pick out a phrase or singular word and then respond incongruously. To the point, I think you have more faith in people than I do, lol.
My workaround, when I have less respect for a poster (because they don’t really read or they’re intractable), is that I throw pictures at them, since that’s really the only way to inform them. Memez iz a thing, on god.
I’ve found over the years that most people don’t actually read. They skim, if that. In many cases I don’t even see a poster skim, they jump to a part of a post, pick out a phrase or singular word and then respond incongruously. To the point, I think you have more faith in people than I do, lol.
My workaround, when I have less respect for a poster (because they don’t really read or they’re intractable), is that I throw pictures at them, since that’s really the only way to inform them. Memez iz a thing, on god.
I wasn’t here when Peterson et al hung out here. The little I have read looks more like a scrum than a debate.
There are people that I think could have a good, substantive debate across the LDS-critic divide, but the numbers are few. Mutual respect required.
So, I guess my recollection of debates is fuzzy, but I don’t know that I have ever been impressed by their outcome. I recall a lot of sophistry, speakers using their time strategically to hold the floor, audiences coming away with the same opinion they had when they arrived.
Sure, it can seem more buttoned-down and genteel, but is much really accomplished beyond providing an audience a diversion? Maybe discourse has been broken down so long that I am unable to reach back to recover the memory of the golden age of debate. Moot court wasn’t that inspiring either.
I dunno. I am fairly happy with my entire experience here. I get different things from arguments with different kinds of people. So, I agree with ceeboo to an extent, but we are still able to mix it up pretty nicely with a predominantly ex-Mo group, in my opinion. If things get boring, I am always able to irritate someone to death.
I don’t think the benefit of a debate is the outcome. I think it’s the process. In person debates are, in my opinion, of questionable value because of the Gish Gallop problem. I have, however, found online debates that are not conducted in real time both interesting and helpful because the participants can take them time necessary to give thoughtful responses.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I don’t think the benefit of a debate is the outcome. I think it’s the process. In person debates are, in my opinion, of questionable value because of the Gish Gallop problem. I have, however, found online debates that are not conducted in real time both interesting and helpful because the participants can take them time necessary to give thoughtful responses.
OK. As long as we are not talking about live debates, I can agree that some kinds of debates are very useful.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
When I started the thread, I was really thinking about in-person debates among friends (although I have done the debate club thing, and it can be fun). Formal debates have their place, although I don't think they at all achieve the assumed goal. Stage debates like those between an evolutionary biologist and a creationist seem stupid and useless to me. It's like a debate entitled, Which empire was most likely to fail: the Roman Empire or the Galactic Empire run by Darth Sidious?
There are friends I am comfortable having a friendly debate with, and there are acquaintances with whom I wouldn't touch a debate with a ten foot pole. The difference is trust and caring.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
As to the main topic, I agree with the point healthy debate requires good faith and trust to the extent both parties have to feel they are able to present their views without the house tipping the balance. But I disagree that message boards make poor places for debate because I believe in human psychology. The only people genuinely persuadable are typically those without much of an opinion to begin with. So informed debate almost always has to be between two parties who are largely unpersuadable. The fruit of healthy debate isn't conversion of an opponent. The fruit is the exposure of the issues that comes from two sides engaging in good faith to expose the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument.
I’ve found over the years that most people don’t actually read. They skim, if that. In many cases I don’t even see a poster skim, they jump to a part of a post, pick out a phrase or singular word and then respond incongruously. To the point, I think you have more faith in people than I do, lol.
Fair points and I don't know if it is really faith in people that drives it. More likely belief that people are largely driven by similar motives and compulsions which, in aggregate, can have incremental positive outcomes. Going back to the difference between modernism, postmodernism and metamodernism I choose to believe there are outcomes worth pursuing even on the face of the bleak reality postmodernism exposes.
That, and low expectations. Small successes are often against bitter odds on the whole so perhaps I find contentment in small things.
