Here is the content of the post that caused Jar and Omni to resign:
This is a Debate Site
This message's title is a self-evident statement, but I use the title to emphasize something some may have lost sight of: this is a debate site.
The purpose of debate is to identify and exploit weaknesses in the arguments of the other side while emphasizing the strengths in your own arguments. The greatest luck in debate is to catch your opponent in a blatant error or misstatement. A single one can be fatal. Those of you who are older might remember President Ford's statement in debate with Jimmy Carter that Eastern Europe wasn't dominated by the Soviet Union, a classic example of losing a debate with a single blunder.
This definition is my own. I didn't look debate up. Not yet. I'm now going to try to find a formal definition on the web. I'm sure there is wide variation in the characterization of debate, but I'm hopeful to find something mainstream and widely acceptable. I'll try Wikipedia first.
Wikipedia does have an entry on debate,
Debate - Wikipedia, and it does have some helpful information. Here are a few excerpts. Keep in mind that there are elements of this formal definition that aren't practical for online debate, but it makes a few relevant points:
Each side is either in favor ("for"), or opposed to ("against"), a statement (proposition) which if adopted would change something.
Some of the rules are broad and must be followed in a general way. For example, those in favor of the proposition are:
required to show the need for it to be adopted as it is written, and yet are
allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted.
To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments, sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.
But the section on Online Debating includes a link to a list of web-based debate associations, so I'm visiting that now...
Here's an excerpt from a book called
Debating: A Basic Introduction:
Each team uses two basic types of argument to support for its side of the topic. First, there are substantive arguments. These are prepared arguments in favour of a team’s side of the topic. Second, there is rebuttal. Rebuttal is your attack on your opposition’s arguments.
I've scanned the book's contents and read several sections, and nowhere can I find anything about aiding the other side, giving them a break, finding the sense behind their nonsense, etc. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
I think people have lost sight of what a debate is. When you find yourself in a discussion where both sides are equally committed to finding out the truth and reaching common ground, treasure it, because it will be rare. The rest of the time, be polite, be non-adversarial, be honest, be accurate, and go for the jugular. This is a debate.
Now there are likely many people who find an aggressive stance too intense and not enjoyable. After all, the time we spend here is recreation time. And you can find a lot of that kind of relaxed discussion here. But in a debate it is difficult to see any grounds for criticizing someone who sees errors on the other side and accurately calls them out. Nwr
*was* posting creationist arguments. Nwr
*was* posting clearly erroneous arguments. Nwr
*was* (inexplicably, given this site's
Forum Guidelines) trying to avoid defending his position (we used to call this discussion avoidance in the board's early days, and it caused a revision to the guidelines). Nwr
*did* keep this up for a considerable time. I
*did* pointedly rebut his erroneous arguments, but I did it honestly, accurately and politely.
I regret that so many disapproved of the tone I took. Modulous quoted the two times I used the term ignorant in reference to Nwr. The first was when he said that the luminiferous aether had been supported to a greater degree than the Big Bang. I would very likely have chosen a different term than ignorant had this been the first error or one of just a few errors, but it was simply the last and also the most absurd error of a long series of errors, and I believe ignorant was an accurate characterization. How could someone who wasn't ignorant of the history of cosmology, and apparently of much else, get the significance of the luminiferous aether exactly backwards?
Modulous notes that I called Nwr ignorant a second time, but it was in response to his knee-jerk reaction calling me ignorant for not recognizing his genius (his exact words were, "It is your ignorance that prevents you from recognizing that my disagreement is a serious one.") Think about this folks. Nwr makes error after error after error, and I'm ignorant. Naturally I replied, "On the contrary, you demonstrate your ignorance at every turn." Which is true. My reply to anyone who argues against this will be to simply list the errors. I know it's a long list, but disk space is cheap these days.
I do regret calling Nwr ignorant. Usually I'm more measured. But someone who persists in making error after error after error can't claim offense when his performance is accurately characterized, however bluntly. I suppose I was hoping that the more pointed my criticism the more likely it might be that he'd start thinking things through and looking things up before posting. Naturally it only made him angry, and I apologize for that. I'll try to choose my words more carefully next time, and I hope Nwr has a resolution or two of his own that might help avoid frustrating the hell out of people he's discussing with. I certainly harbor no hard feelings or ill will. This isn't personal to me, only factual.
But getting back to the main topic, if I've correctly identified the nature of debate (and maybe I haven't, so we should discuss this), then for those who feel uncomfortable with a debate site that permits debate I can only suggest finding another site.
--Percy
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2