Structured Debate Subforum, 1 on 1, no abuse.
- Thread starter SufiPhilosophy
- Start date
Danger, Will Robinson !
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
One would wonder if Will ever became desensitized to robot's warnings, since he had to hear them almost every episode. I know I'm awful. I hope something will become of the debates. Really shouldn't be meddling in things like this that I know I can never be a part of. Mods can remove here, though I am partial to the pic of Smith and Robot. I'll save to my documents. 
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Okay, I'm changing my mind here. I think I would like to challenge either Seattlegal or Vajradhara to a structured debate, although I have no idea what that is. I have no clue what most of the checklist means. Haven't heard from them in awhile, so perhaps it's time for them to girl up? I stand in doubt that they are able to do so. Perhaps it is time for them to meet their master? *have woken up insane*
What are you looking for?
Well, I think you'll find that neither one will respond to machismo ...
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Love, I think?
Well, I think you'll find that neither one will respond to machismo ...
Oh, I don't know, they might be challenged by it. (It might be something new for them.)
I was just presenting myself as a target if they needed one. It never was about winning.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Seattlegal would slap you with a fish. Vajra / Jaye would probably politely bow and walk away.Love, I think?
Oh, I don't know, they might be challenged by it. (It might be something new for them.)
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Ok, two beautiful ladies... I get a bow from one and a slap from the other (would have preferred open palm but fish... yeah, never had that before but I guess it could work). I'm calling that a win/win.
It was a bad plan, poorly executed.
I like the idea...but we would almost have to pay a mod to police it.
1 on 1, IDK....now if we could design some sort of fishbowl consensus methodology...
I like the idea...but we would almost have to pay a mod to police it.
1 on 1, IDK....now if we could design some sort of fishbowl consensus methodology...
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Wil, my friend. (Dare I call you my friend? I would like to.) Welcome back, many have missed you here including me. Yes, one on one would be good. I understand... I would consent to some sort of fishbowl consensus methodology. I'm afraid I wouldn't be good at debate. I'm a social phobic which means basically that a chimpanzee could defeat me in a debate.
I'm really pathetic, I'm afraid all I would do is just erupt in praise for my Beloved. It's sad, I know. Such is love though, that we no longer care how we appear or what people think.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
And in this corner we have someone so certain of his philosophy he is willing to ram it down his opponent's throat, and in that corner we have someone so convinced of her philosophical position that she would do anything to win!
And conversation dies...
If any recall, I tried a thread simply sharing about logical fallacies sometime back, it went over like the proverbial lead balloon. In High School (many more years ago than I care to remember) I was on the Forensics team, which included debate, so I had a leg up on a lot of folks. But I wouldn't want to play referee (I have a life), and I have better things to do than participate.
Have at it if that is what you want. I think what little is left of polite conversation around here will die an ignoble death if you go forward with this idea.
And conversation dies...
If any recall, I tried a thread simply sharing about logical fallacies sometime back, it went over like the proverbial lead balloon. In High School (many more years ago than I care to remember) I was on the Forensics team, which included debate, so I had a leg up on a lot of folks. But I wouldn't want to play referee (I have a life), and I have better things to do than participate.
Have at it if that is what you want. I think what little is left of polite conversation around here will die an ignoble death if you go forward with this idea.
Last edited:
Yes the gladiator aspect is incongruous to me.
Interfaith discussion and interfaith debate...me thinks this is where we differ somewhat compared to other forums.
I think of norm, and cliff and Sam n carla at cheers, or doc and Matt and Festus at miss kitties...
I would like to see more traffic, more people...but. More people interested in exploring, more people seeking to understand.
For that I am willing to exist and grow organically. Weeding what isn't wanted, fertilizing what is.
Interfaith discussion and interfaith debate...me thinks this is where we differ somewhat compared to other forums.
I think of norm, and cliff and Sam n carla at cheers, or doc and Matt and Festus at miss kitties...
I would like to see more traffic, more people...but. More people interested in exploring, more people seeking to understand.
For that I am willing to exist and grow organically. Weeding what isn't wanted, fertilizing what is.
SufiPhilosophy
Evolution by mutation has never been observed
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 55
- Points
- 28
[EDITED to be less emotional]
Because interpersonal abuse and logical fallacies would be barred, meanness and intellectual dishonesty would be barred.
Therefore it would be a clean contest of ideas.
As such it cannot possibly be taken personally
I am not upset at losing an argument. I adapt. I take the prevailing side's view. That is how l progress. I am grateful to lose an argument because the moment l concede, l become the winner too because l adopt that winning view in lieu of my older view.
Alternatively l would just ask for a rematch.
To quiver at the prospect of this interchange of ideas happening is strange to me.
And yes there was the intention of an element of sport to this. Why not. It raises the pulse, increases interest, and the rules will always keep it under control.
It's like saying you don't like chess because why be so mean to the other person's knight, why can't knight and bishop just sit in their respective halves and chat to each other and recognise their differences and leave it at that. But okay if this genuinely terrifies you ...
Btw it doesn't have to always be momentous topics, there's depth in everything and quite a few interesting topics were proposed.
You could start with a cats versus dogs topic. I would be up for that if you will have me. I believe cats are superior to dogs and l can argue effectively that dogs shouldn't even be kept as pets.
Because interpersonal abuse and logical fallacies would be barred, meanness and intellectual dishonesty would be barred.
Therefore it would be a clean contest of ideas.
As such it cannot possibly be taken personally
I am not upset at losing an argument. I adapt. I take the prevailing side's view. That is how l progress. I am grateful to lose an argument because the moment l concede, l become the winner too because l adopt that winning view in lieu of my older view.
Alternatively l would just ask for a rematch.
To quiver at the prospect of this interchange of ideas happening is strange to me.
And yes there was the intention of an element of sport to this. Why not. It raises the pulse, increases interest, and the rules will always keep it under control.
It's like saying you don't like chess because why be so mean to the other person's knight, why can't knight and bishop just sit in their respective halves and chat to each other and recognise their differences and leave it at that. But okay if this genuinely terrifies you ...
Btw it doesn't have to always be momentous topics, there's depth in everything and quite a few interesting topics were proposed.
You could start with a cats versus dogs topic. I would be up for that if you will have me. I believe cats are superior to dogs and l can argue effectively that dogs shouldn't even be kept as pets.
Last edited:
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Hi Sufi,
Yes, I think it's about finding the right balance. Granted, I'm not much on debate but I find the exchange of energies appealing. Sometimes I just like to wind talented people up and watch them go. It's quite a marvelous thing.
No hurry, I'm sure we'll strike a balance at some point. I never really have a plan, just go with the flow. I've had cats and dogs... My last dog's name was Wolfen and when I had to put him down I never replaced him. I let the vet try everything to save him. I told the vet if the roles were reversed somehow he would so the same for me.
My brother and I live with two feral walk-in cats, one a yellow tabby and the other a black and white seal point. Both cats and dogs can be good companions in different ways. I doubt I could argue the superiority of one over the other, but would love to see you do it.
(I could go the devil's advocate way and try to find some kind of counter argument, however.)
Yes, I think it's about finding the right balance. Granted, I'm not much on debate but I find the exchange of energies appealing. Sometimes I just like to wind talented people up and watch them go. It's quite a marvelous thing.
No hurry, I'm sure we'll strike a balance at some point. I never really have a plan, just go with the flow. I've had cats and dogs... My last dog's name was Wolfen and when I had to put him down I never replaced him. I let the vet try everything to save him. I told the vet if the roles were reversed somehow he would so the same for me.
My brother and I live with two feral walk-in cats, one a yellow tabby and the other a black and white seal point. Both cats and dogs can be good companions in different ways. I doubt I could argue the superiority of one over the other, but would love to see you do it.
(I could go the devil's advocate way and try to find some kind of counter argument, however.)
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
False Attribution Fallacy...and wishful thinking. It wouldn't stop a thing.
From someone who has pointed out intellectual dishonesty around here for years. Ask around some of the old timers here, I'm certain they can vouch for this point. Or you could simply read the threads I linked to, which on the whole were probably about 2/5 me.
Incomplete Comparison Fallacy, from someone with over 7000 posts interacting with others over 17 plus years on this specific forum. Which, by extension, means I've dealt with folks similar to yourself on more than one occasion around here. Only this time I am no longer constrained by decorum.
Meet me politely, and discuss politely, and I will be more than happy to return the same. Do unto others as you wish to be done unto. Deliver attitude, receive attitude, I am more than willing to provide. This too can be verified by others around here, probably with a LOT of rolled eyes.
None of this requires "rules," timers, judges or referees.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
And dogs have owners, cats have staff
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
My thoughts...
If the goal is to encourage peaceful interactions between differing belief systems, putting in some cage match that will only incite aggressive tendencies and result in hard feelings isn't going to promote that goal.
I do agree as much with Sufi that sitting around singing Kum Ba Yah doesn't do much for conversation either.
There is a delicate balance, and it is one I found myself crossing the line and made myself take a time out the last time I was here. It wasn't intentional, and I certainly owe someone an apology, but the nature of conversation is that folks sometimes step across boundaries. As long as that is not intentionally hurtful, and the offended one isn't unwilling to forgive and move on, generally conversation can move along.
I found the most inclusive discussions were those that discussed big ideas, and answers were in the form of a question. Not as a "rule," but as a search for meaning and / or understanding. Questions invite participation.
Nothing kills a discussion like someone who is dead certain about whatever. Once someone's mind is sealed, there is no more two way communication, and discussion dies.
This place never has been about "who is best" or "which is most correct." G-d created all humans, and all human conditions, therefore all religions by extension. There are many paths up the mountain to return to the Father of all...nobody has all the answers, and none of the answers are complete. Each only holds a piece, and each individual only holds a piece of that piece, therefore none of us knows everything.
But we can share amongst each other, that is the blessing of this place.