Come and Get me...

It has been my unfortunate experience to be told more than once that most everything I say is unfounded and/or emotionally charged propaganda. I am also told by one individual in specific that I keep putting words in her mouth.(Save one occurence) To my mind this keeps occuring when I am about to win an argument. My opponents usually use this moment, not to let me clean up my act to suit their demands, but to drop out of the argument entirely. This furthers my opinion that it is them ducking and running and not really my problem.But in all fairness, maybe it is just me.My intention with this site has been to 1) get real insight into ID, and 2) get better with writing/debating. Assuming I am right does not help with either.Give me some constructive criticism on my writing. What do you see me doing that I should avoid (examples might help), and what should I add into my posts?Here are some specifics:1) Currently I do not post refs to anything a person can simply Google or Yahoo with a 1-3 word topical entry. Should I be more strict?2) I realize I can be verbose. Unfortunately I have found when I miss something (for brevity) that is directly where an opponent heads as if I am ducking their argument, and so now I try to address every point. Is this a mistake?Thanks to anyone that helps out.------------------
holmes

Don't be so restrictive about #1. If it *really* is easy to google for the result, simply post a link to the appropriate google search to make the point.As for #2, I have a problem with that also. It's hard to find the right balance.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Generalyy holmes I like the quality of your posts (even if I'm not sure I always agree). I haven't been paying detailed attention and I'm a bit too lazy to go back over them. I will start paying some more attention and offer up my opinions (for what they are worth). I'd be glad to get any feedback you would care to offer on mine as well. I have *very* thick skin.In general, I am not as careful a poster as the better ones here. I don't take it that seriously. My usual post is off the top of my head without research or supporting references.My inclination is to think that it is ok to post without a reference unless you are pretty sure that it will be contentious and needs to be supported immediately. Otherwise why not wait for a request of more back up?

Hi Holmes. You and I mix it up fairly often so I'll comment:1. If you would cut the pork fat from a large majority of your posts you could save yourself a lota effort, save on forum bandwith (for Percy) and save on the eyes and time for us who dialog with you. As well, you would be more forthright and to the point in the points you wish to make.2. You seem to have this idea that you must argue your case with comments to an adversary's statements (usually all of them} with something, anything, no matter how weak, so as not to need to allow anything of credit to the opponent.For example, in the HIV debate, you delve into a lota sicko garbauge practices by sexual deviants which really made no substantial contribution to the topic and needn't be addressed. It did absolute nothing to bolster your argument and wasn't worth my time for response.3. I don't have time to look them all up, but you tend to throw out false implications by spin so as to missrepresent my position or to confuse the reader, hoping to enhance a weak position you may be taking.4. You have proven to be an intelligent, diligent poster, so please don't construe my statements to imply otherwise.Having said that, if you were my neighbor, we'd get along fine as you seem to a likeable kind of person. It was noble of you to ask for constructive criticism so as to become even a better contribution to the forum than you already are, for the most part.Actually I toyed with giving you something like honorable mention in the good posters thread, but when I pondered some of the above I moved on. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-07-2003]

I don't think I have anything negative to say about your posts. They tend to be brief and not exhaustive on a topic, but is that really a problem?Given what method you use to write them, I think they deliver what you set out to accomplish.On your reference comment, do you feel (just thinking back, you don't have to dig around) that some of my posts would have been better with more references? Like it would have made my position more clear/trust worthy?------------------
holmes

Hi, Holmes!The background buzz on you is that you're one of the more skillful debaters, and that you have an eclectic collection of positions. I think everyone who has argued with Creationists has felt this way at one time or another, but I think you're raising the issue because you're finding it also happens for you with non-Creationists on non-Creationist topics. Complex situations like this usually have multiple causes and explanations, especially since everyone you debate with is different, and I can only comment on how it feels to me when we've been in discussions together.For me I guess there's one main factor. Perhaps it is just me, but sometimes in cases where it seems like some flexibility or uncertainty would be appropriate I can detect none in the way you state your position. I feel like I could debate until kingdom come and not change your mind one bit. On topics I feel strongly about and where I feel there is a clear right and wrong, like science education in public schools, this wouldn't matter. But on topics where the answers seem more ambiguous, at least to me, I'm far less motivated to get involved in a discussion with someone whose mind seems already made up. Combine this with a few acerbic characterizations of my position and it quickly becomes just not worth it.Of course, this is just me. My personal debating style (at least the one I'm not ashamed of) probably comes across as wimpy to others, but my experience has been that hitting people over the head with a blunderbuss is not an effective form of persuasion, even when you're dead right. An example is the recent discussion about the age of the universe being relative to the observer. There were some who strongly questioned the relative age part. Though they were dead wrong and I knew it at the outset, even though it took many more posts than I would have liked, in the end they eventually saw the flaws in their argument. I'm not sure this would ever have happened had those whose view prevailed adopted a "You obviously don't know anything" tone.--Percy

Thanks buz...1) Could you give me an example of pork fat? Is it the commentary I add to the statements to lace factual statements together (segues), or just the extra details around a point of fact?2) Hey I do give credit sometimes (especially on Biblical views of homosexuality and possibility of prophecy) so I don't feel the need to remove ALL credit of my opponent. In fact I don't think I could have given more credit to any opponent than I did in my debate with Quetzal on the nature of terrorism. I even credited him with 1 or 2 posts of the month while I was fighting him!But I think I get what you are saying which was my question #2. I guess I kind of use my entire arsenal at every point I can find sticking out, and it makes my replies overwhelming (input wise)?I disagree with your "sicko garbage" comment with regard to the HIV thread, but maybe it presents ANOTHER PROBLEM OF MINE altogether. I was trying to make the point that certain practices (while offensive and promiscuous) have just the same preventative effect as complete abstention from promiscuous sex.Could the problem be that I use shocking terminology in debate, where I could easily use more subdued language, and so get my point across rather than turning off my opponent? I have to admit I have a weakness for injecting vulgarity into debate... kind of a Lenny Bruce of the philosophical circles. Perhaps this is too much.That said, it is hard to tone down some language which may be necessary when specifically talking about sexual practices. However, if this is causing a problem for you, I'll work on it.3) [misrepresentations] Ahhhh, this is what I was getting at. I certainly do not do so intentionally. I have a feeling this happens when I am trying to use a reductio, or just showing similar examples, but it must be coming off as more of a strawman. In future I will state my reductios and examples to see if this clears away some of the confusion.4) Don't ever give me a post of the month credit until you are 100% certain that it was 100% good writing and moved you in some way. I appreciate the thoughts though.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Could the problem be that I use shocking terminology in debate, where I could easily use more subdued language, and so get my point across rather than turning off my opponent?

---

What shocking terminology?"Oral sex"? "Masturbation"?Gasp. Run for the hills, everyone. Holmes is using dirty, dirty clinical terms for sexual acts.In a thread about a sexually transmitted disease, and the ways in which it is and is not spread.In which the term "anal sex" has already been used by the person alleging that you have brought up "sicko garbauge practices".Stay the course as is, Holmes. I think you're doing fine.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 11-07-2003]

[edited because I could never get this reply to sound like an additional question, instead of further debate... for later reference (the next post by Ned) I was inquiring how to not seem so intransigent when I am actually just overenthusiastic (given amount of confidence I have in my conclusion). ]Thanks for the suggestion Percy. I will try to improve my patience in wording and pacing the writing in future posts.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-07-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 11-07-2003]

May I suggest asking questions?

Asking questions... thanks Ned... I'll think about this very seriously.Percy, do you agree that this would this help me out (of seeming so inflexible)?------------------
holmes

Actually I think I would like a bit more feedback on the questions issue.I was actually trying to avoid asking questions as a technique for BETTER writing. I have not perfected it and so some squeak in here and there, and maybe they aren't the best ones (kind of sarcastic sounding).But this is the problem I was finding with questions anyway, it appears to distract from the coherent structure of an argument, and may come off as insulting or forced if I just spent a large portion of a post on destroying an opponents position.Kind of like, am I seriously asking this question after all of THAT? Am I really interested in the answer?I don't want to come off as phony either.I guess my question comes down to how do I integrate questions into advancing a position with which I am very confident? Or is it not good writing to advance a position so strongly.This seems to be what Percy was getting at with regard to his own technique. In that case, maybe what I am lacking is patience. Treating my posts like I am rushing to put out a dangerous fire, rather than carefully fanning the flames of curiosity to provide more illumination.------------------
holmes

I think we all have varying levels of a tendancy to rush into the discussion. Since almost all arguments here have all ready been thrashed out we jump deep into it very quickly.Everyone has a different style. I just like to try to slow things down and get clear what is being talked about. Let someone establish just what their postition is first. Then pick the most important parts to discuss.E.g., if someone disagrees that evolution happened there is limited value in discussing the fossil record if they think the earth is 6,000 years old and the whole record was piled up in one year. If someone doesn't agree that evolution happened then there is not much good in disussing any theories of how it happened.