# Debate/argue vs. abrasive insults.



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Both (Bobm and Plainsman) of us were pleased with the way things had changed in the political form. However, both of us are also disappointed that it has regressed again. In that light we would like to express our unity in saying we will look unfavorably upon those who turn this into a personal vendetta.

It was pleasant for a short time to learn that many of us are close in our thoughts, but differed in implementation of ideas. Even when there is civil disagreement it is stimulating, because it is from those who think differently that we gain new ideas. Personal opinions are fine, if you can tell us why you feel that way. Citations are even better, because they don't require us to simply trust an unknown internet person.

Many consider politics out of vogue if it is not near an election, but it is those who are passionate about it that will make a difference beyond their single vote. Good ideas are good ideas liberal , conservative, or anywhere in between. Whichever you wish to call it,debate or arguments, are fine, but the petty whiz matches are unacceptable.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

This is rather obviously targeted at me, and I would far prefer debate over typed screaming matches. It is rather hard to avoid when you have people such as yourself simply trying to stir the pot however. Even if you really did begin to like Wolfowitz simply because my side does not, try to bite your tongue in the future. Things will go much smoother.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It is sad that we think of things as my side vs. your side when we are all pro second amendment sportsmen.

I think most people have a variety of ways in which they judge people. They judge them by their accomplishments and failures, and also by their friends and foes. Show me a person who says they do not, and I will show you someone whom you should not believe anything else they say either.

This is aimed at everyone MT, and I have also looked in the mirror. The fact remains however, we will not let things regress to the past. This does not mean that we must all walk on eggshells for those who can not hold a civil tongue. There are ways of saying things that does not make it personal. Even though many of us have not met we have talked much and become an internet family. I do not want anyone abusing any of the fine people who contribute and share their sincere ideas.

At this time in the political spectrum after an election many may find this form not that useful. I do however value new ideas. Unfortunately it is hard for all of us to drop our political biases, myself included, but new ideas are being strangled by contentions that become to personal.

I have never met Bobm, but I am sure he shares these views also, as do the vast majority of you. Thank you.

PS you may have noticed I dropped my signature line a while ago. It accomplished nothing to poke fun at liberals.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:beer: We can all do better and it will make this a lot more interesting discuss, not discust. I have been making an effort to shape up myself, we all tend to write first and think second once in a while. Lets all try to keep the dicussions on target and be civil thats not too much to ask and its the standard from now on.

Plainsman we will meet someday :beer:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Plainsman, although I am also guilty of poking fun at the conservatives, I agree with your sentiment about the forum. I have noticed that when a topic is posted, there are usually about 6 - 8 exchanges of information and questions, then it declines immediately into MT versus the overwhelming number of conservatives shouting match that does little to advance the issues and present new facts. A vast majority of the posts on this site are very childish and fall into the school yard spat of "Did so, did not". A debate, if formally held, would consist of one persons viewpoint, followed by another persons viewpoint and one round of rebuttals from each side. On the other hand, the shouting matches on this site are reflective of polarized political climate in which we live with entrenched positions on both sides. Where have all the moderates gone?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Maybe a non-partisan debate moderator is needed. We could make it such that there could still be petty arguing threads but some would be reserved for debate purposes only. Any inflamitory statements would not be accepted, and would be removed or asked to be removed. Only statements with factual backup would be accepted. Sites or people with any obvious bias would no be accepted as credible, ala no Limbaugh or liberalforum.org. This would be my ideal situation anyhow, its up to Chris and his advisors if it will happen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Maybe a non-partisan debate moderator


Good luck, I hear old St. Nick is tied up. Just my way of saying everyone thinks they are non partisan, but I don't believe that anymore than I believe in Santa. In this day and age non-partisan are like unicorns, they don't exist. If they do then they are disinterested, or dumber than a stick. 
You may find someone that says they are non-partisan, but personally I'm not going to believe anything else they say either. Anybody want some swamp land.



> there could still be petty arguing threads


*WHY*



> Only statements with factual backup would be accepted


Nothing is stopping us from doing that now


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Quote:
> there could still be petty arguing threads
> 
> WHY


Because they it is a good place to get what you really think off your chest. It allows people to give their true gut reactions and lets us learn how others really feel.



> Quote:
> Only statements with factual backup would be accepted
> 
> Nothing is stopping us from doing that now


Actually there is, who decides what information is factual or not?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Because they it is a good place to get what you really think off your chest. It allows people to give their true gut reactions and lets us learn how others really feel.


I don't think that is productive. People are free to say what they think, just don't make it personal. You can think a politician is terrible if you feel better, but don't call someone on the form a idiot, fool, stupid, etc.



> Quote:
> Quote:
> Only statements with factual backup would be accepted
> 
> ...


The same people that decide it now, the individual reader. I certainly will not take everything as factual because a moderator or you say it is. Do you want me to tell you what is factual? When pigs fly.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

indsport said:


> Plainsman, I have noticed that when a topic is posted, there are usually about 6 - 8 exchanges of information and questions, then it declines immediately into MT versus the overwhelming number of conservatives shouting match that does little to advance the issues and present new facts.


Where are we at now?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ej4prmc

I hear you. The difference is, I guarantee you it is nearly over. Thank you for the reminder. If I read you right you will approve of that?????????????????????????

Indsport, thank you also.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I don't think that is productive. People are free to say what they think, just don't make it personal. You can think a politician is terrible if you feel better, but don't call someone on the form a idiot, fool, stupid, etc.


Ok, I will restate my promise. If you cut the inflamitory comments made just to stir the pot and boil my blood, I will stop calling names. Until that time, don't expect change.



> The same people that decide it now, the individual reader. I certainly will not take everything as factual because a moderator or you say it is. Do you want me to tell you what is factual? When pigs fly.


Why would it be a better system? Because you are willing to take uncredible sources as fact simply because it says what you want to hear. At the least a debate moderator would be able to decide whether the information had basis or was just talking points.



> The difference is, I guarantee you it is nearly over.


I'm glad to see that you are willing to change your ways, good on you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Until that time, don't expect change.


It isn't that I expect it, I hope Bob will agree we will not settle for anything else. We have stated our opinion and will stick to it.

As ej4prmc pointed out we are regressing. Therefore it is time to lock this thread. I appreciate the agreement from some, it's nice to have support. I am locking this thread, not out of disrespect, but to avoid further deviance from it's intended affect. Thank you.


----------

