Lack of "evidence" in pre election debate on these boards...

Neil3030

In the run up to the election I've found myself becoming vacuumed into the world of politics to the point of becoming increasingly more frequent in my visitation to this section of the boards. And as a swing-voter with absolutely no party affiliations I find it insightful for both general election principles, potential agendas I should be considering and, most interestingly, the subjectivities of the electorate (;))

But there is a tendency that I have come across time and again for people to make defensive requests for supportive evidence in cases where an accusation has been made against their party or general political ideals. Incidents such as:

"Your crowd said X"
"PROVE IT"

"X did Y"
"WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE"

"X and Y were involved in Z"
"THAT WAS NEVER PROVEN"

I'm honestly not having a disguised snipe at a particular political following on these boards, as I've seen people do it on all sides of the divide. It just strikes me as a last resort act of defiance in the face of a potentially damaging point or statement. Certainly, people have the right to request supportive evidence for wild accusations, but rarely are such defensive retorts accompanied around these boards with phrases such as: "that's an obscene accusation to make", "where are you getting that from", "that's complete rubbish" etc. Hence why I believe these to be very weak defensive strategies. It's almost as if the respondent knows that the accusations being made are appropriate, yet call upon their aggressor's dearth in supportive evidence (which in a lot of cases would be either unethical, extremely expensive or bordering the impossible to obtain) as their one and only defence, just so as not be seen as losing the argument. Nick Naylor's strategy that he outlines to his son in the film "Thank You for Smoking" springs to mind; the bulk of his instruction being: You don't need to prove you're right, as long as you prove the other guy wrong.

Now I'm certain a portion of you that have stuck with my ramblings to this point are hoping I qualify why I've decided to illuminate and criticise what I'm sure many regard as a bog-standard debating tactic. Well i guess it is Sunday, and I am a little bored, but in addition, when you argue on behalf of something in a public forum, you are not just transmitting your point to those with whom you are directly communicating, you are allowing a potentially infinite audience be made aware of your discourse. Furthermore, people like me (undecided; swing-voter; whatever you want to call us) decide elections, and if the polls are anything to go by, there is a strong likelihood that the forthcoming election will be no different. So I challenge those out there on these boards that if your participational intent is to defend political ideology, specific parties or specific individuals, we are going to require more than these weak defensive strategies in order to make me believe that whatever potentially damaging statement someone makes about your party is not true.

Prove to us that your party should be supported; when someone makes a point that you feel does not have a leg to stand on, go that extra mile and suggest that the point may even be reconceptualised, justified, or at least once and for all dismissed as complete and utter hear-say with at least some form of ancillary effort. At least make it look like there could be a genuine reason to supportively fall in line behind you.

Despite my criminally unenlightened mind in anything political, I have a firm belief in the saliency of democracy and the freedom of the individual to choose whom he or she deems most worthy to run their country. These kinds of things get up my back a little bit, as they suggest to me that either people are getting lazy in their political dissemination or are being unjustifiably malicious in their political discourse. Maybe it's a combination of both.

I suppose, to paraphrase Kent Brockman:

"Little boy... Likes people to go that extra mile if they expect his vote - What's your opinion?"




(P.S. I'm aware that an amusing response to this would be to request supportive evidence of my accusation, so being the nice person that I am I thought I'd just ruin that for you :P)

The White Rose

Whaa?

AidoCQS

Unique to politics I suppose are the party hacks, spin-doctors (not the same thing) who will bear false witness or outright lie to get their particular person elected. An old family friend of ours would have voted for a Mule if it had a FF badge on it, the spin doctors are a more commercial reletivly new phenomenum. To a lot of people this is a game and it’s accepted, to more a long held family belief and they are simply or genetically unable to go against party line. But it is at its essence a competition where the words, thoughts and sentiments are like hurley's and sliothars. Point is you don’t always know why somebody says something political, so at the very least you should try ascertain if it’s true.

''So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.'' -- John F. Kennedy