Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proposed Rules for Debates
lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 1 of 44 (722444)
03-21-2014 8:32 AM


I've noticed that several of the debates in the science section between different sides is either ruined or derailed due to bad discussion practices such as using various logical fallacies (most recently the debate about the radiometric dating and the use of the shotgun fallacy [Shooting off so many arguments and points in a discussion that the opposition cannot possibly respond to them all or many of them in a reasonable amount of time and if they did their post would take up 3-4 pages]).
I propose we start a thread to discuss a set of universal rules that posters can voluntarily put themselves under when starting a debate thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 03-21-2014 1:03 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2014 3:00 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2014 3:09 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 14 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 8:23 AM lokiare has not replied
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2014 9:05 AM lokiare has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 44 (722446)
03-21-2014 8:39 AM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 3 of 44 (722447)
03-21-2014 8:41 AM


I don't understand, why was it moved?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 9:34 AM lokiare has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 44 (722457)
03-21-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by lokiare
03-21-2014 8:41 AM


Welcome to the fray lokiare
I don't understand, why was it moved?
So that it could be debated. The Proposed New Topics forum is only for proposing and fine tuning of new topics, not for debate. Admins then place the new topic in an appropriate forum when it is ready.
Message 1: ... (most recently the debate about the radiometric dating ...
Which thread was that?
... debates in the science section between different sides is either ruined or derailed due to bad discussion practices such as using various logical fallacies (most recently the debate about the radiometric dating and the use of the shotgun fallacy [Shooting off so many arguments and points in a discussion that the opposition cannot possibly respond to them all or many of them in a reasonable amount of time and if they did their post would take up 3-4 pages]).
Also known as the Gish Gallop, a rather common creationist approach, especially in verbal debates (such as the Ham and Nye debate).
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 8:41 AM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 9:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 5 of 44 (722459)
03-21-2014 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
03-21-2014 9:34 AM


The thread was "Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD"
Where one side would post 5+ posts, some quite long, to the other sides 2-3 posts. The 2-3 poster had to bow out because they couldn't keep up, not because the other posters somehow proved them wrong with facts.
In the Ham and Nye debate both sides did it. Which is why timed verbal debates don't accomplish anything. In fact during that debate I think each side only addressed points made by the other a few times. The rest of the time they were talking past each other. Hopefully in a forum environment we can debate in a manner that actually shines light on subjects and at some point come to a consensus.
My goal here is to set up a set of rules that all parties in a debate here agree to and pick a neutral 3rd party to judge when one of the debaters is violating it. So that the debates don't break down with one person outshouting the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 9:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Pressie, posted 03-21-2014 9:57 AM lokiare has not replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 10:34 AM lokiare has not replied
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 03-24-2014 10:51 AM lokiare has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 6 of 44 (722462)
03-21-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by lokiare
03-21-2014 9:49 AM


This is why this is such a great forum. You can propose a great debate with someone. It will be one-on-one, but everyone else can watch it.
Just read the rules for it. Explained in the forum rules. Already established. Gish Gallops are not allowed.
A peanut gallery is also opened where the 'peanuts' can comment.
Oh, and I'm adding that scientists have got hundreds of years of scientific studies to back them up. That's why it might seem to you as if they post lots of posts and the other one only a few. It's because of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for scientific theories. Creationists have virtually nothing.
You're welcome to try it here. Just follow the rules.
Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraphs
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 9:49 AM lokiare has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 44 (722467)
03-21-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by lokiare
03-21-2014 9:49 AM


The thread was "Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD"
And I was one involved ...
Where one side would post 5+ posts, some quite long, to the other sides 2-3 posts. ...
Yes, this is what happens when one side just asks questions or states several erroneous posts. The answers are not necessarily easy one-liners, but need to supply significant information. This is also what happens when one side has evidence to provide and the other doesn't so they make stuff up.
... The 2-3 poster had to bow out because they couldn't keep up, not because the other posters somehow proved them wrong with facts.
You are free to hold that opinion. Myself, I suspect that Mindspawn ran out of misinformation and rabbit holes. Nor do I expect that he thinks he was defeated. Please note that I offered to wait for more answers, so arguing that the amount of information was overwhelming is a red herring fallacy.
Do you think the information I provided was wrong?
One of the other things that happens in debates like this is that the goals shift or are moved by one participant, so that it doesn't end when the original argument is dealt with -- and Mindspawns original "objection" was dealt with, he just kept piling on more things to be answered instead of acknowledging that it had been answered.
If you want to establish new rules, then I suggest having a clear goal is one.
Mindspawn Message 3: My main problem with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology, ...
It was shown that (a) tree ring dating is accurate and (b) that carbon dating correlates with tree ring dating and thus can be used to calibrate it. At that point the debate should have been over.
Do you disagree?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 9:49 AM lokiare has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 8 of 44 (722487)
03-21-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-21-2014 8:32 AM


lokiare writes:
... the shotgun fallacy [Shooting off so many arguments and points in a discussion that the opposition cannot possibly respond to them all or many of them in a reasonable amount of time and if they did their post would take up 3-4 pages]).
So take 3-4 pages.
Unfortunately, as Jed Clampett used to say, "When he tells you 'howdy' he's told you everything he knows." Creationism is an empty vessel. It will always be drowned by facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 8:32 AM lokiare has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 2:14 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 9 of 44 (722492)
03-21-2014 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
03-21-2014 1:03 PM


as Jed Clampett used to say, "When he tells you 'howdy' he's told you everything he knows."
Appeal to Authority fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 03-21-2014 1:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 03-22-2014 11:43 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (722499)
03-21-2014 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-21-2014 8:32 AM


We have rules:
quote:
Forum Guidelines
  1. Please follow all moderator requests. Concerns about moderation should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here thread.
  2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.
  4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  5. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
  6. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
  7. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
  8. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
  9. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
  10. Do not participate as more than one ID. You may change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.
  11. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
-- Encyclopedia Britannica, on debate
Enforcement
The deletion of posts is not practiced here, and editing of posts is practiced only rarely. The exception is spam, which is usually either edited or deleted.
Moderators will try to be helpful, but the moderator staff is small and they do not have the time to coach members toward proper participation. Persistent violations can result in restricted permissions or even suspensions that can range from hours to days to permanent. Permanent suspensions are relatively rare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 8:32 AM lokiare has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 11 of 44 (722501)
03-21-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-21-2014 8:32 AM


It seems that we have another creationist obsessed with the idea of logical fallacies without understanding what they are.
Limiting argument to valid logically deductive arguments would be foolish and unnecessarily limiting. Ruling out other modes of rational argument would, in the end, leave us without any argument at all.
Now I agree that the creationist performance is often dismal, as it was in the radiocarbon dating thread, but I don't see more rules as the answer. I have a nasty feeling that it would disrupt debate more because of arguments about who broke the rules (and quite likely with the creationist breaking the rules AND falsely accusing his opponent of having done so).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 8:32 AM lokiare has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 03-21-2014 4:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 12 of 44 (722511)
03-21-2014 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
03-21-2014 3:09 PM


Limiting argument to valid logically deductive arguments would be foolish and unnecessarily limiting.
Exactly. We would have to throw out inference from the very start which would disqualify all of science. Of course, if the debate were to deal with science then the debate would be over quite quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2014 3:09 PM PaulK has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 13 of 44 (722547)
03-22-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by AZPaul3
03-21-2014 2:14 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
Appeal to Authority fallacy.
It would be if I cited Jed Clampett as an authority on ignorance. I didn't. I take full responsibility for the claim that creationists don't know anything beyond "howdy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 2:14 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 14 of 44 (722672)
03-24-2014 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-21-2014 8:32 AM


Lokaire.
I'm willing to have a one-on-one debate with you on the lithostratigraphy of the Clarens Formation of the Main Karoo Basin.
We can discuss the different Members of that formation as well as the different areas, bore holes and geophysical evaluations of where those members of the Clarens Formation are encountered. It can also include the different biostratigraphical zones.
We abide by the rules for engagement already in operation in this excellent website. Up for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 8:32 AM lokiare has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 8:53 AM Pressie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 44 (722675)
03-24-2014 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Pressie
03-24-2014 8:23 AM


Of course your proposal is a sham, Pressie, since you know that the creationists here don't have the technical geological knowledge it would take to engage you on the level of terminological jargon you are presenting.
But what could be very interesting is if you presented a Proposed Topic on the Clarens formation and what you think it proves about the Old Earth or evolution or whatever your main interest is, and let us all ponder the information and respond.
ABE: And unless you want to talk only to yourself or to other geologists, please try to avoid technical language.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 8:23 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 03-24-2014 9:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024