On the ethics of debate

Humm . . .Maybe we should have a topic where I give my (very limited) understanding of TOE and its proofs, and then you tell me what you think is wrong with what I said.

Go for it.

A great debate?

I guess we can't go on without you, after all.Ah, let's see: my use of bold is suggestively "interesting" because an immediately adjacent phrase you find exculpatory was not bolded but merely included? Would that cover it?I am underwhelmed: the bolded passage supported my assertion that you make accusations of deception; the phrase that follows supported my assertion that you then back off to a "lesser" charge of self-deception. I cannot think of a more appropriate use of emphases--almost meta-textual, really.In the message above, you proceed again to mix the two (I won't add any emphases): I am content. You may go on without me.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

I don't mind if it's one-on-one if that makes it easier to follow, as I'm sure it will. But how about a Mediocre Discussion instead of great debate, in which both parties of execrable science (or is yours less so?) aim to understand things better and perhaps invite in expert testimony from time to time? I mean I really would like to understand the genetics better but not the way it usually goes here.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 04:18 PM

Good idea. I'll compose a PNT.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 03:30 PM

I suggest you prepare a Proposed New Topic on this. Maybe include the words "Mediocre Discussion" in the title if you like. We could put it in the Great Debate forum as an indication that it is restricted to the agreed participants

---

Hello robinrohan,
This will be interesting. It seems the debate is between the two of you and I have the impression that by the rules of this forum it should be limited to you two. I do have a suggestion. First order of business, establish the topic of the discussion.Each participant should define the word "evolution" and the phrase "theory of evolution." The definition should be in your own words, not a quote pasted in from some reference.Second suggestion: There will be numerous sub-topics and points made. Don't clutter up posts will multiple points and long winded explanations, make one or two points in a post, make them short ane clear, and see where it goes.That first request is the core initiator of this thread and of your debate. Faith make claims, but she does not know the words she uses much less know the topic. Debating a topic when the participants do not agree on the topic will come to no useful conclusion.No need to respond, use my suggestions or not as you choose. I will be watching the debate.Good luck.

Thanks. My idea is to use plain language.

Hello purpledawn, I take a differing view. Yes, this is a formal debate. This forum has a clear and stated purpose. This forum has clear and stated rules. (Recognizing that the rules are not comprehensive) Topics are declared for each thread. Moderators try to keep threads on topic. While Robert’s rules are not specified, it is formal just the same.There are implicit rules in conversation. One of them is that when you make a claim, you are obligated to explain your position and substantiate it. Imagine you and I are having a discussion and I declare that you are full of crap. Imagine that I insist that you accept my position and expect you to believe my position. (A bit arrogant?) Imagine further that I will not explain my position. Am I playing by the rules?Now remember that I have the opportunity to stick my opinion into your conversations without others without your permission such that you really cannot ignore it.You would probably hold that my behavior is odious. And you would be right. And how would you feel if I persistantly and flagarently behaved in that manner?This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-20-2005 01:52 AM

quote:

---

Imagine that I assumem make that insist, that you accept my position and expect you to believe my position.

---

quote:

---

Now remember that I have the opportunity to stick my opinion into your conversations without others without your permission such that you really cannot ignore it.

---

Typos have made these sentences unclear, please clarify the sentences. Previewing before posting helps.

quote:

---

Imagine you and I are having a discussion and I declare that you are full of crap.

---

Declaring that I am full of crap breaks rule #10

quote:

---

You would probably hold that my behavior is odious. And you would be right. And how would you feel if I persistantly and flagarently behaved in that manner?

---

IMO, you are describing something different than simply not answering a direct question.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Hello purpledawn,
The hour is late, I cannot sleep, and so must make this short and go to bed anyway. I did not use my imaginary conversation to hide a slam at you. I truely did mean it to illistrate a point. While I disagree with your position, I am impressed with the things you say and the quality of your positions. I fear that I did not make the perspective of my post clear.In quick summary, I feel that Faith makes unwarrented statements and will not defend them, and will not justify them. She puts her comments in and takes offense when she is called to task. Then she runs off to other threads and makes the same types of posts. When it comes to simple questions such as, "How do you define evolution?" (consider in the context of the posts) she should be required to answer.Thanks for your comments. If I did sound as though I was hiding a slam at you, then I do appologize. That was not my intent.

quote:

---

I did not use my imaginary conversation to hide a slam at you.

---

I took it as an illustration as it was intended. Unfortunately, your example fell under rule #10.

quote:

---

She should be required to answer.

---

Out of curiosity, how do you propose that should happen?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Hello purpledawn,I do not propose any specific action. I want to clarify obligations that people have when they enter debates and conversations such as those here. And that is in part that any active member does have an obligation to answer topic related questions. Topic related questions do include any opinions stated and points made to support their position.I will reconsider my actions IAW rule 10.Thanks for your post.

No. But it demonstrates poor etiquette if the person can't even address a legitimate question. If the person was responding to other questions prior to this, then I agree.At the very least he/she is guilty of rude behavior. No, but they are certainly being rude and demonstrating they don't really want to discuss the topic, just jabber away broadcasting their own thoughts.