Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

A thead then. I would say debate happens but it is not structured enough for the people who want real debate. (No names). This is a thread where the posters who want to really DEBATE can and know it will stay on topic -and relevant - and have basic intellectual standards, and civilities observed. I just think that people spend more time defending a position than actually debating.

Originally Posted by moneypen20

I do hope you're not calling me a moron I have the ability to ban, you know

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

Indeed. But the silliness and the fun - and partisan nature distracts from debate that some posters really want to have. I would participate at times, knowing that I have the other threads available to fall back to when the old brain cells are flagging.

Originally Posted by Fleaflyfloflum

And you think this thread was started for those reasons?

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

Who cares. We would now have the capability to do it properly.
Anyhow my rules are now in operation so add materially to the thread, or I will take away your scooter, you lucky sod.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

A thead then. I would say debate happens but it is not structured enough for the people who want real debate. (No names). This is a thread where the posters who want to really DEBATE can and know it will stay on topic -and relevant - and have basic intellectual standards, and civilities observed. I just think that people spend more time defending a position than actually debating.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

A new subforum, or thread, for proper, debating of tabled topics to the level of that found in any civilised arena. Reasonable *standards* are set for ALL posts in the 'rules'. Naturally, allowances are made for grammar and spelling if the spirit of the post is sound. It is self-governed, policed by nominated umpires (who can be mods) who keep the thread on track, relevant and fair - and un-partisan.

No loudmouths, insults OR partisan-posting allowed:
As this is BE, I have an idea for a few simple rules that would, whilst seem dictatorial, allow many more opinions and detail to come to the fore..I think people might be surprised how we would see the other sides of posters as 'positions' would not need to be 'defended', and detail and debate promoted.

eg. Posters cannot post to say "I agree". They must materially add to the debate, refine or define.

eg. Posters cannot disagree or attack a notion, without specifying which bits, and specifying which other bits they agree with. They must in the spirit of the exercise, balance good and bad.

Any takers?

Originally Posted by Dorothy

TIO is just such a place for you, then. If you find it a little too much (as a lot do) then I would suggest The Lounge. Lots of discussion and debate on there.

Originally Posted by Burbage

....and commie bleeding-heart liberal scum will view snobbery as a bad thing.

Originally Posted by moneypen20

But very often that's all any debate is. Two sides (or more) of an argument, ends, up more often than not, going back to the main points. It's impossible to have the sort of debate that continues along tracks without diversion, on a public forum - too many people get involved. You're doing your pompous thing again If you want clear debate, either go, as Poll suggested, to TIO or join up to a discussion board on particular subjects. BE, I would suggest, is too general for that sort of conversation.

Originally Posted by Dorothy

TIO is just such a place for you, then. If you find it a little too much (as a lot do) then I would suggest The Lounge. Lots of discussion and debate on there.

Originally Posted by Burbage

Yes, but a debate must operate from first principals. Before we debate whether each of us is or is not a snob, for example, we must first establish what a snob is and determine whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Otherwise we are simply arguing from immovable standpoints which alienate the very core of debate. The essence of the debate needs to move from the very first point where we neeed to examine honestly and without prejudice the very nature of what a snob might or might not be and whether the term should be applied in a pejorative or non-pejorative sense. If you get my drift. We cannot simply assume that being a snob is a bad thing since snobs will view snobbery as a good thing, and commie bleeding-heart liberal scum will view snobbery as a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Seasider

But Burby, what about bleeding-heart liberal snobs like me?

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

I'm a snob, and so's my wife.