The finer points of debating with each other

[Cheri]

Hopefully will come settled and goes smooth... No more attacking or pointing finger

I double doubt that it would die any sooner.

 

[DreamDeaf]

Ah civility ~ such a double edged sword...

So many different meanings:

Being civil to each other

Keeping a civil tongue in your head

Showing civility when opening a door for someone

Discussing the Civil War in history class (sorry, couldn't resist that one)

In this kind of thing, I would think it would be interpreted as being polite and tactful when paticipating in a discussion ~ however, when did you ever know anyone to remain polite and tactful when a debate gets heated?

Impossible.

IMHO, I would think being civil in a discussion would be showing respect for one another even when the discussion gets going really strong ~ and really listening to what the other is saying, even when you're getting angry at that person.

Keep a civil tongue in your head, in my interpretation, would be continuing the discussion with an observation in my own POV, and not resorting to slurs, attacks or being disrespectful.

Does this help, my dear ^Angel^?

 

[TweetyBird]

I had a problem posting in here last night ~ battery in my sidekick died and I lost what I had typed down here... I'll retype what I can remember here and then go from there.

In any debate, there are several points to remember and one of them is:

R*E*S*P*E*C*T

Respect is paramount when you're involved in a deep discussion or debating a point ~ it does not matter what you think about the other person you're talking to; if you think the person deserve or don't deserve the respect a discussion demands ~ each is entitled to his/her opinion, point of view or perspective, period.

If you do not agree with what a person is saying, then state why you do not agree with it, back it up with a point~finding statement (links won't help if you don't back it up with your own perspective on it), and keep it on topic.

If you agree, back it up with why you agree with it, and offer your own point of view on the topic - it looks like you're avoiding the discussion when you're saying you agree and then don't explain why.

Most of all, do not let it turn into a personal attack with an attack on the other's personal life, insulting, name-calling. The other person is more likely to turn the tables on you with the same, or a bad report on your flaming post; and it's more likely that others will join ranks against you.

You also have to remember, yeah, you are facing a computer screen, and you cannot see the person on the other; the main thing to remember is that the other person has feelings, desires, emotions, and intelligence, just like you. If you attack the person, insult their beliefs, disregard their feelings, they will do the same thing to you and in doing that, they will be attacking you, insulting your beliefs and disregarding your feelings.

So...
Remember. Computers are just objects, they can be replaced. Humans have feelings, and when one leaves, we lose a valuable member of our forum.

Respect one another.

*A M E N* i agree with u!!!!!!

 

[C.C.Sinned]

I admit I used to be one of them who used to fingerpoint while debates with others, but everytime I look at my post, I felt so embarassed because that's not me and sometimes I feel like I hurt someone's feelings and it makes me feel a bit sad inside, I don't want to be right all the time, cause there are times I'm wrong in things, and I see that sometimes when it comes to talk about senstive topic, it makes it harder to keep your emotions under control, then a thread becomes heat up more on fire cause I'm not taking a deep breathe before replying and that when it makes things worse by agruing back and fourth at each others and it will never ends unless you stop by walking away from it...

Now, I've learn to bite my tongue, and ignore it by walking away from it, if I wanted to say my piece I either say it in a calm way, or I don't say it at all....It makes me feel better about myself so I know I'm not hurting anyone's feelings cause that the last thing I wanted to do....


Lately I see too many fingerpoint like who started it or what, it seem like they're not looking at how they post but want to blame someone who started it, that where the agrument keeps going with all the fingerpointing, it like if member A say something and then member B didn't like what member A said, so member B will start attacking member A, then when other members see it, they join along like a fellowship, or jumping in a bandwagon by insulting and attacking member A for started it, it gets to the point of where a thread will get out of control and that when the fire start to heat up and the smoke start to flow right up the ceiling....

I think the problem is, sometimes members don't look at themselves on how they post or reply but wants to blame someone by fingerpointing them instead of trying to discuss this in a civil manner....I know there will be times we might have a few agruments but it makes things worse when more members join along and that when it never end until a moderator lock it ...

Then look how hypocritical this statement you made to me is -

No, you're just thriller that this member has been banned, and yet if it happen to you, you would throw a fist about it....

slanderous and bashing. You are making it look like I want members to be banned and am thrilled buy it. As always you assume incorrectly

 

[Liza]

*gasp* 6 days until Christmas! I'm looking forward to that. Why, thank you, Malfy ad Beowulf!

Ohhhh! It's a fine line between sugarcoating a truth and using it as a weapon, don'tcha think? I was watching this comedy called "Saved!" with Mandy Moore and Jena Malone.. Jena Malone's character chides Mandy Moore's character that religion is not a weapon, when Mandy's character hit her on the back with a bible. Jena's character walked away with her dignity intact while we could see that Mandy's character was fuming at her exit. That was funny as far as metaphors went. Religion isn't the point.. just makes one think how we exercise our "truth" with one another, huh?! LOL

Angel & CCSinned... do what I do... blame it all on bbnt! It works

 

[C.C.Sinned]

Angel & CCSinned... do what I do... blame it all on bbnt! It works

Yep you can't trust that meddling gossip spewing arrogant pest at all

and when it's not him that damn Beowulf sticks his annoying butt in the middle of it!

 

[VamPyroX]

When it comes to debating here at NTID, students don't do it right.

When you are in a debate, you say everything ONCE!

Here at NTID, we have a weekly meeting called NTID Student Assembly (NSA). One big thing that sucks is that people repeat themselves over and over. When someone makes a motion, it's standard procedure to allow people to make appropriate statements whether they're FOR or AGAINST the motion. In NSA, the representatives don't. They usually make personal comments or repeat what others say. They say things like:

• I don't like it.
• I think it's stupid.
• I agree with him.
• Everyone thinks it's stupid.

In a good meeting, discussions last about 10 minutes per topic. In NSA, each topic usually lasts over 30 minutes... sometimes a hour! Jeez!

 

[LinuxGold]

When it comes to debating here at NTID, students don't do it right.

When you are in a debate, you say everything ONCE!

Here at NTID, we have a weekly meeting called NTID Student Assembly (NSA). One big thing that sucks is that people repeat themselves over and over. When someone makes a motion, it's standard procedure to allow people to make appropriate statements whether they're FOR or AGAINST the motion. In NSA, the representatives don't. They usually make personal comments or repeat what others say. They say things like:

• I don't like it.
• I think it's stupid.
• I agree with him.
• Everyone thinks it's stupid.

In a good meeting, discussions last about 10 minutes per topic. In NSA, each topic usually lasts over 30 minutes... sometimes a hour! Jeez!

Exactly! I went to Model United Nations mock debate sessions during high school year and won top 10 debate speaker. I then went on to the National Assembly in North Carolina and rules are similar to what you said. Make your argument against the subject of discussion itself, nothing direct or personal against author or another speaker.

 

[diehardbiker]

Your right! Seen enough! Sometimes it had gone out of control. I have never seen in hearing clubs or organization that goes into argument and accusing on every detail of issues comparing to deaf organizations.

I think the trouble is often deaf people have misunderstood the difference between opinion and facts. Sometimes opinions based on fact is ok to debate, but opinion based on personal isn't ok.

When it comes to debating here at NTID, students don't do it right.

When you are in a debate, you say everything ONCE!

Here at NTID, we have a weekly meeting called NTID Student Assembly (NSA). One big thing that sucks is that people repeat themselves over and over. When someone makes a motion, it's standard procedure to allow people to make appropriate statements whether they're FOR or AGAINST the motion. In NSA, the representatives don't. They usually make personal comments or repeat what others say. They say things like:

• I don't like it.
• I think it's stupid.
• I agree with him.
• Everyone thinks it's stupid.

In a good meeting, discussions last about 10 minutes per topic. In NSA, each topic usually lasts over 30 minutes... sometimes a hour! Jeez!

 

[diehardbiker]

Sure, they will come back settle and go smooth once again. But there will be other eposides anyway! See, this AD became smooth and calm after RS was banned permenantly until somebody else (Newbie) barged in and rocked the boat of AD like recent. I sure hope that this newbie realizes that we had same problem back then and that this behavior isn't acceptable.

Originally Posted by GalaxyAngel
Hopefully will come settled and goes smooth... No more attacking or pointing finger

I double doubt that it would die any sooner.