x 1000
A lot of these pettier arguments can stop by simply not being reciprocal to baiting attacks. The ignore list is there for a reason if you find these posts triggering. I personally don't have the emotional collateral available to get involved in all the personal attacks lobbied in this section... so usually I wait until about page 4-5 when everyone has wore themselves down some to contribute
... also if people are leaving threads with these anxious thoughts constantly in their mind, about who is talking about who, who is writing about who, when the next attack will be... then that is a very good sign that one's focus on these matters has
become unhealthy... and the ignore function is a good course of action if particular personality traits, verbiage or use of incendiary is a trigger for you.
I speak from vast experience on this topic.
Niamh, I have tried this... it's hard to get any real conversation going when SD appears limited to the same few people whose metal are better tested in other topics. The rest of the forum doesn't appear to be the longform poster type (though I still think they should participate as diverse views== better discussion imo) I'm also at a disadvantage because I'm out of country... so can't really bring any sort of local perspective to the table. My topics are limited to US affairs... often our politics that gets the most attention.
Sad to say.
As far as debating... this section might be overly due then for a rename to serious discussions or something, because
debate is a highly competitive verb... it's first priority is not to be a mutual discussion and having an open mind
, though we should strive for it... it's literally about constructing the best arguments/rebuttals in arguments... at least that's how I sometimes treat it... because the word debate, implies a competitive theme. Which is a bit out of place compared to the rest of the forum which is more relaxed... actually.
Debate
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:
a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic. strife; contention. (
Is this really archaic? )
Moreover, most arguments in the controversial topics are doomed to stalemate from the beginning because they based on emotional/moral grounds... that is, they are heavily influenced by one's personal or moral background, not something that can be torn apart in logic... something you can't separate from the personal either, so often leads to mutual bickering which leads to personal attacks and a stalemate, because convincing someone their moral barometer is broken is a lot harder (read: impossible) than just simply debating something matter of factly and having a discussion there... it's also easy to have an upper hand in the morality dept (superficially speaking) but often means those points go on forever and ever... and never leaves room for another interpretation or other POVs to be heard... some have not been willing to leave those moral arguments to a previous thread... they feel they need to make it a point thread to thread. I won't name names because I feel like we're all a little guilty of this.
Threaded Mode