particular style of debating

tritium

Hi

I'd like to get a view as to the appropriateness of a particular style of debating. Its one that to be honest has in the past left me feeling somewhat bullied and victimised and yet when posters who use this style complain about being reined in they seem to receive a considerable and surprising degree of sympathy from some of the mods on boards and what I'd perceive as a degree of kids gloves from some others.

The style is basically (IMO) to consistently derail and redirect any arguement they disagree with, often through fallacious ad hominems or selective use of online links. That would be fine if you could just post a clear rebuttal (which I think is necessary to prevent the poster from taking control of the debate and dishonestly presenting a skewed view that then becomes unchallenged and accepted)

However any rebuttal is typically shouted down by claims you are dishonest and a liar. Any attempt to refine your rebuttal to clearly show that their arguement is flawed (and given the frequency it happens with I'd argue intentionally dishonest) is just met with more abuse, usually combined with claims you've deliberatly misrepresented them - the poster then claims that they've shown what their real point is but actually any responses have just been the abusive stream I've outlined above, indeed when I've attempted to clarify with such posters its ignored.

Its particularly frustrating when the thread is on a topic I particularly care about (I'll concede I can get passionate in certain topics). Generally it becomes am exercise in frustration as any evidence you may present is dismissed by moving goalposts selectively to continue with the fallacy- for example ive given a clear example to show they were wrong, exactly as they had specified, only to be told that they were right unless I could give a similar example with a different set of (new) conditions attached-jesus it feels like pulling teeth.

Yes I could see why some would say to just ignore but as I said it would just allow them to gain control dishonestly of an arguement I care about and turn their dishonest view into accepted truth. It would also turn boards into a haven for dishonesty and bullying, and I do believe this sort of sustained attack is bullying. I'd report them but to be honest a)its often done cleverly/subtly and b) as seen in a few other threads there seems to be a degree of sympathy for this type of poster amongst some mods which surprises and saddens me -not all by any means but enough to be a concern though. I do realise that theres a need to look at all sides of a debate and I do respect that the mods role isn't always easy here, if anything I'm asking about the framework mods have to interpret this stuff within. I don't think this is me being thin skinned as I've had many intense debates with many posters here in the past

I'd note that because of this you're particularly defenceless against this- you have reduced protection against the abuse but if you respond in kind you're open to sanction (rightly) for personal abuse. Yet by not rising to it you're criticised for being somehow passively aggressive. Its a lose lose scenario in every way

So apologies for the rant. I guess my real question is whether this type of debate is really acceptable and if so why?

kneemos

Sounds like someone disagreeing with you?

tritium

kneemos wrote: »

Sounds like someone disagreeing with you?

There's a fair stretch of difference though between someone disagreeing with you, while engaging in honest debate, and someone repeatedly abusing you to conceal the cracks in their dishonest debate, no?

Nody

tritium wrote: »

There's a fair stretch of difference though between someone disagreeing with you, while engaging in honest debate, and someone repeatedly abusing you to conceal the cracks in their dishonest debate, no?

Depends on which side of the fence you are to be fair; look at a random DRP thread and you'll consistently see users claiming one thing while CMods/Admins see something else. With out something more tangible (i.e. example) it's hard to say with out excessive theorizing.

challengemaster

I'm going to guess some of the carry on you're talking about is the likes of this thread.

tritium wrote: »

left me feeling somewhat bullied and victimised

The style is basically (IMO) to consistently derail and redirect any arguement they disagree with, often through fallacious ad hominems or selective use of online links.

Based on your posts in that thread, you neither appear bullied or victimised.

tritium wrote: »

you seem to take exception to my deconstructing your flawed ad hominem here, I'm not sure why. For the avoidance of doubt I pointed out two issues with the argument.

tritium wrote: »

we both know you did your usual ad hominem of...

tritium wrote: »

why exactly are you refusing to address any of the questions you've been asked, hiding instead behind personal attacks? Is it because you actually can't?

If you want an honest opinion - it looks like you are engaged in a long standing pissing contest that does nothing except derail threads on an ongoing basis.

I haven't looked further back than that thread, but judging by the post that followed from Zulu and Wibbs you and another poster are constantly at this back and forth argument and consistently the cause of what you seem to complain about in the feedback thread.

tritium wrote: »

The motive appears to drag the topic into a semantic death spiral so that people walk away or the thread gets clogged.

If I saw that sort of back and forth taking part on a thread, I would walk away too. IMO you are part of the problem, not the victim.

tritium

challengemaster wrote: »

I'm going to guess some of the carry on you're talking about is the likes of this thread.




Based on your posts in that thread, you neither appear bullied or victimised.







If you want an honest opinion - it looks like you are engaged in a long standing pissing contest that does nothing except derail threads on an ongoing basis.

I haven't looked further back than that thread, but judging by the post that followed from Zulu and Wibbs you and another poster are constantly at this back and forth argument and consistently the cause of what you seem to complain about in the feedback thread.



If I saw that sort of back and forth taking part on a thread, I would walk away too. IMO you are part of the problem, not the victim.

I'm not for a minute disagreeing that there is a degree of friction- from my perspective at least a great deal if it comes from the style of posting that I've outlined above, and which is what I've specifically asked for feedback on as to its acceptability. I've actually been pretty conscious for the reasons I've outlined in my op not to rise to it but rather to debate the issue, however as I've noted before its not as simple as walking away and giving someone a control of the debate based on an arguement that is false. Hell if we were talking just honest disagreement conducted civilly I wouldnt even be here and I deliberately held off posting here until I could correctly express what I wanted to say

You've pulled some snippets from me in your response, some were genuinely reaching a point of frustration however in every case I've focused on what I believe is the flawed and I'd suggest dishonest arguement being made. What you haven't noted is that within two pages prior to the snippet you picked there are at least four posts by that poster accusing me of being dishonest etc repeatedly. To be fair a mod on the forum stepped in, and to be equally fair the mod also had concerns about my own contribution- what you've described as a pissing contest, and most posters would probably say you should walk away from before you get as bad as the other person.

That said the contribution towards me there is the online equivalent of a discission where the other part y spends their time screaming ' liar' into your face, and frankly that's wrong in my opinion. Having a go at someone on the receiving end for not screaming something back is also wrong in my opinion- the lose lose I referenced in my op.

So, am I saying that any friction between us is completely outside my control -no! Am I saying that I expect every poster to warmly and unquestioningly embrace my view -no! Am I saying that no one should be able to debate a differing view -no

I am saying that the screaming liar at someone for pointing out that you might be wrong should be unacceptable. I am asking if sustaining this approach to sustain your position is acceptable. I am saying that doing that without at any point engaging in the points others have made to you should be unacceptable in my opinion. And I am saying that when your whole contribution to another poster is to repeatedly dismiss them as a liar its bullying- sorry but if it walks like a duck and quals like a duck its a duck!

Overheal

Yeah, about style of posting... I'm generally a speed reader, but for my life I can't process those paragraphs. Maybe its the run on sentences. Maybe its the all too frequent use of awkwardly large words that don't typically belong in conversation speech. I don't know.

But more to the point: it never goes well when posters - especially opposing posters - address each other instead of the topic. Yeah once in a while you call someone out on argumentum ad hominem and thats fine but when you go singling out posters time after time it becomes obvious. "you" "you" "you". When 2 or more people go at it with the "you" its bound to get personal after so long. Also, striking other posters ("is it because you actually cant?") is rarely a good tactic.

At the end of the day, I could spend 6 hours and 3 cups of coffee on one out-of-this-world-crazy youtube commentator, trying to explain to them why my opinion is 'the right one' and you could get nowhere - and really, does it matter? Will I sleep better at night for it? Probably not. It is valuable to learn to identify when someone is just not willing to be receptive to your ideas and write it off. Threads are not something where one side of the argument has to always win out - and rarely that ever happens. The best we can all hope for is to express our views in a civil and constructive manner and then leave other people space to do the same. "Well, that is my stance, feel free to agree or disagree," etc.