The Way To Argue Politics Is To Focus On The Merit Of Your View

[PoliTalker]

What is it about YOUR view that causes it to make more sense than an opposing view?

That's the real crux of it. That's politics. Political issues don't have anything to do with the citizens arguing about them. Facts don't depend on which side 'has the most credibility.'

Why do you believe the things you believe?

Why do any of us believe what we do?

We recognize certain facts, or what we call facts, which support our views.

The real difference is that we on the left and on the right recognize different 'facts.'

What one person accepts as 'fact,' another rejects. That's what we are really arguing about. That's the essence of it.

So it really boils down to who has the most accurate information.

Now, it has gotten to the point where the right often disagrees with the mainstream news, preferring to take their version of reality from alternate sources. The right then maintains as accepted fact, that the media is liberal, so this gives license to disregard media reports at will.

The left finds this ridiculous, and believes the integrity of the mainstream media has not changed. Reports are well-vetted, reputations of the major outlets are well-known, and any information which is later shown to be incorrect is well covered and subsequently corrected.

While all of this dispute about basic facts is going on, immature people on both sides think the way to settle the dispute is to attack the 'credibility of the other side' by calling them names and hurling insults.

This is not the way to argue politics. Shifting from merit to credibility of the opposition is the same as capitulating on the merit of your argument.

You're giving up on arguing the issue, giving in, now you've gotten into attacking the person you are arguing with.

Flame wars are contagious. This is a way for people to try to vent all their frustrations. And sadly, this has been going on for decades. Feelings are raw. People have been hurt. There is anger. Worse, that anger is actually fueled and nurtured by talk show pundits who get lots of attention and sell lots of advertising by telling people how horrible the other side is. This generally occurs in right wing radio.

Left wing radio could hardly be more different. Instead of talking about how horrible the people are on the right, they talk about, of all things, the merit of the argument. What are the issues, what is being done about them, how could we do it better? If people on the right are being singled out for actions they have taken, the talk is all about the actions, not the person or their character.

Bottom line:

There really isn't anything you can say about a person who holds an opposing view that makes your view make any more sense, or that verifies incorrect 'facts' you may have actually just gotten wrong in the first place.

 

[PoliTalker]

I realize this method of arguing politics rules out at least 95% of the posts on this site.

But really, if you are going to argue a point, shouldn't that point be what you're arguing about?

Not how horrible the person you are arguing with supposedly is?

 

[PoliTalker]

Wouldn't we really all raise ourselves up to a higher level of understanding of the issues if we actually talked mainly about them, instead of one another?

 

[PoliTalker]

Are we here to talk about politics or each other?

 

[PoliTalker]

Now that we are all on the same side in a war maybe it is time to stop ripping into one another.

It's the humans against the bugs.

The world is the prize.

Can we work together on this?

 

[Bill]

Did you get your answer after only your own 5 posts in four days?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hi Bill,

Did you get your answer after only your own 5 posts in four days?

We all know the answers. Those are rhetorical questions, posed in the hopes of getting a discussion going on the best way to discuss politics.

Most people don't want to talk about this because they are guilty of the personal attack discussion style. They wanna play machine gun debate.

Either it is a strong habit, which they have zero interest in changing, or it is only the occasional outburst, to which they feel entitled or justified in doing.

"Debaters should always be respectful of others, particularly their opponents ..."

Since there is so much behavior here which resembles school children, I've quoted the above from Debate Rules for academic school debates.

I never took part in debating when I was in school, but now I enjoy it. At least the academic part of it, which is less than 5% of what is posted at JPP, sadly.

I used to do the personal attack style long ago on another board, but I grew bored with it. It's just so shallow. I decided to create a new persona. I wanted to be above that. I achieved that, and it changed my thinking. Now, I can debate politics with anybody in any setting in real life. It doesn't make me angry. I am well enough informed that I'd like to say I've heard it all, but at least I can say I've heard enough that nothing fazes me. Instead, new things and concepts fascinate me. New ways of thinking, new approaches to solving old problems.

I can tell in real life when somebody is trying to make a point, or simply expressing anger and looking for somebody to blame for something which makes no sense to them.

That's the point to stop. Some people cannot discuss politics without getting angry.

It's an art to pick your words carefully, so as not to be accusatory or demeaning to your opponent.

Judging from most posts at JPP, a LOST art form.

Sad.

So I wonder.

Can that change?

I'd like to draw the idea of respectful debate out of the shadows here and see more posts on a purely intellectual level; as opposed to the guttural level.

I just have this strange view that it's really more mentally stimulating to actually discuss a topic based only on the merits of your argument, rather than how cleverly you insult your opponent.

Yes, weird, I know.

 

[StoneByStone]

I realize this method of arguing politics rules out at least 95% of the posts on this site.

But really, if you are going to argue a point, shouldn't that point be what you're arguing about?

Not how horrible the person you are arguing with supposedly is?

That's true. The Fascists here only know #whataboutism.

 

[PoliTalker]

Here is what they teach students of academic debate:

"Debate Tips for Students

While most students agree that debate is fun, the process can be nerve-wracking for some students, particularly those who have a fear of public speaking. Fortunately, as with most things in life, practice makes perfect. Students who are debating can enhance their argumentation and delivery skills by adhering to a few simple tips.

One of the most important tips when it comes to debating is to focus on attacking ideas rather than people. Attacking an opponent on a personal level only weakens the argument. Instead, debaters should look for flaws in their opponent’s reasoning and call the logic into question rather than the person.

Students should avoid the use of words like “always,” “never,” “often” or “generally” because they make their arguments more vulnerable to attack from opponents.

If they believe that their opponent is wrong about something, they should point it out in a tactful manner. For instance, instead of simply saying that an opponent is wrong, students should state that their opponent’s idea is mistaken and then back that up with support for why the idea is flawed.

Students should not disagree with truths that are obvious or try to exaggerate evidence to suit their case. While it is acceptable to present an opinion, students should be careful to acknowledge that it is just an opinion rather than trying to present that opinion as a fact.

Students should use appropriate tone of voice, maintain their composure throughout the debate and avoid bickering. If students remain focused on supporting their ideas and refuting the ideas of their opponents, they are likely to succeed."

Debate Rules And Techniques

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello StoneByStone,

That's true. The Fascists here only know #whataboutism.

It would be more pleasant if that was all they use. Sadly, they, like nearly everyone else at one point or another, fall back on attacking other posters. (Which is sad.)

But of course, anyone who only uses whataboutism would be easy to defeat in a moderated debate.

 

[PoliTalker]

Here's some guidelines from a discussion of how to discuss politics socially:

"Listen. Give everyone a chance to speak before you break into a long discussion. Speaking from experience, we know it's difficult not to interrupt when you agree or disagree strongly with something that is said.

Avoid an accusatory tone. If a debate ensues, try to keep your tone even and without any hint of accusing someone of being anything negative (stupid, unenlightened, immoral, or anything that can start a heated argument).

Avoid name-calling. The second someone calls another person in the group a derogatory name, the discussion is on dangerous ground. Don't be that person.

Ask questions. If you aren't clear on a point that someone is making—whether you agree or disagree—ask specific questions to clarify. And then give the person a chance to answer without interruption. You may be surprised and learn something when she answers.

Don't take anything personally. Someone may oppose your political beliefs, but if she is your friend, it's obvious that she likes you as a person. Don't consider yourself affronted just because someone disagrees with your political views.

Don't sling arrows or use foul language. If you know you're in the presence of someone who has opposing views, don't take jabs at people who believe what she does and don't use swear words. That will only drive a wedge between you, and you may never be able to repair the relationship in the future. Polite language will keep others listening and engaged in the conversation.

Do research. Before you state something as fact, research the details. Your argument won't stand up if you misquote or misrepresent the facts. Be careful who or what you quote. One thing that we've always found amusing is the comment, "I read it somewhere." We would want to know where you read it and who wrote it.

Find common ground. Don't assume that just because you follow an opposing political party that you disagree on all issues. There must be something you can agree on, or you wouldn't be friends.

Give praise. When the other person makes a good point, even if you don't agree with the general concept, give her credit by saying something like, "I can see your point," or "Now that you put it that way, it makes sense." Saying this shows that you are listening, and you respect the other person's opinions, even if you don't agree."

The Spruce

Quite a difference from most of what we see here, eh?

-Which makes it all the more noteworthy when posts do follow these guidelines.

We do see that too!

 

[Bill]

Hi Bill,



We all know the answers. Those are rhetorical questions, posed in the hopes of getting a discussion going on the best way to discuss politics.

Most people don't want to talk about this because they are guilty of the personal attack discussion style. They wanna play machine gun debate.

Either it is a strong habit, which they have zero interest in changing, or it is only the occasional outburst, to which they feel entitled or justified in doing.

"Debaters should always be respectful of others, particularly their opponents ..."

Since there is so much behavior here which resembles school children, I've quoted the above from Debate Rules for academic school debates.

I never took part in debating when I was in school, but now I enjoy it. At least the academic part of it, which is less than 5% of what is posted at JPP, sadly.

I used to do the personal attack style long ago on another board, but I grew bored with it. It's just so shallow. I decided to create a new persona. I wanted to be above that. I achieved that, and it changed my thinking. Now, I can debate politics with anybody in any setting in real life. It doesn't make me angry. I am well enough informed that I'd like to say I've heard it all, but at least I can say I've heard enough that nothing fazes me. Instead, new things and concepts fascinate me. New ways of thinking, new approaches to solving old problems.

I can tell in real life when somebody is trying to make a point, or simply expressing anger and looking for somebody to blame for something which makes no sense to them.

That's the point to stop. Some people cannot discuss politics without getting angry.

It's an art to pick your words carefully, so as not to be accusatory or demeaning to your opponent.

Judging from most posts at JPP, a LOST art form.

Sad.

So I wonder.

Can that change?

I'd like to draw the idea of respectful debate out of the shadows here and see more posts on a purely intellectual level; as opposed to the guttural level.

I just have this strange view that it's really more mentally stimulating to actually discuss a topic based only on the merits of your argument, rather than how cleverly you insult your opponent.

Yes, weird, I know.

There is an option here, above plain politics...

One thing is crystal clear to me: most ppl are not interested in that.. I wish it was different, but hey, you & I are still here for some reason..

I have been on actual sites where there are strict rules/guidelines etc..

Of course ppl find ways around them & you end up w/ a tight-nit core that have the entire empty space to themselves.......

I would also add that is is boring as hell.. Even when they are proven wrong they come back w/ some petty minuet way they weren't all wrong, only partially wrong etc.. Like someone cares..

I have a neighbor that has a big Ukulele board, (we were both moderating/admin message boards @ the time) & I asked him once, laughingly, you prob never have to babysit, ban ppl etc. he laughed & so oh no, have to do it all the time, he had just banned a few that morning for trolling & fighting...

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

There is an option here, above plain politics...

One thing is crystal clear to me: most ppl are not interested in that.. I wish it was different, but hey, you & I are still here for some reason..

I have been on actual sites where there are strict rules/guidelines etc..

Of course ppl find ways around them & you end up w/ a tight-nit core that have the entire empty space to themselves.......

I would also add that is is boring as hell.. Even when they are proven wrong they come back w/ some petty minuet way they weren't all wrong, only partially wrong etc.. Like someone cares..

I have a neighbor that has a big Ukulele board, (we were both moderating/admin message boards @ the time) & I asked him once, laughingly, you prob never have to babysit, ban ppl etc. he laughed & so oh no, have to do it all the time, he had just banned a few that morning for trolling & fighting...

Well, yeah. That's the thing. The more rules a board has requires more moderation. That means somebody's job is to actively read all this stuff and try to keep up with the personal attacks, banning people regularly. That's a job. Who is gonna pay that person?

Plus, there's probably a graph. One axis is the level of moderation, the other is the volume of posts. The more moderation, the fewer the posts. At the end of the graph is something like APP. Yes, of course, I have tried that. There is not enough variety of views, too few participants. Insufficient volume. And that is a self-fulfilling problem. If there was more activity there, then more people would be motivated to try it, but since there isn't, they don't.

There is more respectful posting here on the funny pages than over there in serious world.

And I think it is also infectious. Most people could go either way at the flip of a switch. They are able to make purely academic posts. They are simply in the habit of tossing in the sailor talk. Somebody else posts in a respectful way, they are able to respond in kind. Somebody else posts in a nasty way and they are ready to 'hold their own' with that kind of talk too. For whatever that's worth... (I see no value in it)

So I have no problem setting the tone for respectful posting.

And naturally, I would always like to see more of it. I understand, with no rules and minimal moderation, we are always going to have immature posts. But there's no reason we can't try to bring out the better side of people with our own better side. Tilt the scales toward a little more taste.

Now that a lot of people are getting cooped up inside, this takes on added importance. Places like this are going to represent ways our society continues to interact while the economy is shut down.

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



Well, yeah. That's the thing. The more rules a board has requires more moderation. That means somebody's job is to actively read all this stuff and try to keep up with the personal attacks, banning people regularly. That's a job. Who is gonna pay that person?

Plus, there's probably a graph. One axis is the level of moderation, the other is the volume of posts. The more moderation, the fewer the posts. At the end of the graph is something like APP. Yes, of course, I have tried that. There is not enough variety of views, too few participants. Insufficient volume. And that is a self-fulfilling problem. If there was more activity there, then more people would be motivated to try it, but since there isn't, they don't.

There is more respectful posting here on the funny pages than over there in serious world.

And I think it is also infectious. Most people could go either way at the flip of a switch. They are able to make purely academic posts. They are simply in the habit of tossing in the sailor talk. Somebody else posts in a respectful way, they are able to respond in kind. Somebody else posts in a nasty way and they are ready to 'hold their own' with that kind of talk too. For whatever that's worth... (I see no value in it)

So I have no problem setting the tone for respectful posting.

And naturally, I would always like to see more of it. I understand, with no rules and minimal moderation, we are always going to have immature posts. But there's no reason we can't try to bring out the better side of people with our own better side. Tilt the scales toward a little more taste.

Now that a lot of people are getting cooped up inside, this takes on added importance. Places like this are going to represent ways our society continues to interact while the economy is shut down.

I think I do my part, although I am not a saint..

I think the variance between the funny & serious is merely a reflection of some ppl's valuing their own opinions & taking themselves a bit to seriously.......

Nothing we do here is going to change that serious world.. If ppl want to make a change they need to get off their ass & go out into that world & make a difference in someone elses life..

For some here, who I respect immensely, this is merely a part of their game but for others this is their game, all they got, nothing more,& sadly they believe their childish giggles, parroting & getting their shitoff is more than just that..

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

I think I do my part, although I am not a saint..

I think the variance between the funny & serious is merely a reflection of some ppl's valuing their own opinions & taking themselves a bit to seriously.......

Nothing we do here is going to change that serious world.. If ppl want to make a change they need to get off their ass & go out into that world & make a difference in someone elses life..

For some here, who I respect immensely, this is merely a part of their game but for others this is their game, all they got, nothing more,& sadly they believe their childish giggles, parroting & getting their shitoff is more than just that..

You do your part for civil posting, of that there can be no doubt. You're one of the more reserved ones here.

And it is sad that some are so consumed with this place that it is their life. That's sad. There is so much more to life.

That's no big surprise, really. It only makes sense that a place like this would attract minds like that. And certainly this place means different things to different people. What the polite intellectual gets out of this place is very different from what the immature troll gets.

I'm not really very entertained by foolish things. I scroll through far more posts than I read. Maybe read a word or two to confirm it's petty personal stuff, move on. Always looking for substance, a position on an issue. Something I can take issue with if I see it the other way.

I just have this (apparently very strange) idea that politics is about the issues.

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



You do your part for civil posting, of that there can be no doubt. You're one of the more reserved ones here.

And it is sad that some are so consumed with this place that it is their life. That's sad. There is so much more to life.

That's no big surprise, really. It only makes sense that a place like this would attract minds like that. And certainly this place means different things to different people. What the polite intellectual gets out of this place is very different from what the immature troll gets.

I'm not really very entertained by foolish things. I scroll through far more posts than I read. Maybe read a word or two to confirm it's petty personal stuff, move on. Always looking for substance, a position on an issue. Something I can take issue with if I see it the other way.

I just have this (apparently very strange) idea that politics is about the issues.

Yes, it is that & it is more..

Like the example I gave~ Ukulele are about music

These are merely foundations upon which to lay the human experience..(as we know is a lot more gut & butt than thought)

It is a realm of ideas & most will get little more out of it than that which they put in..

 

[cancel2 2022]

Here's some guidelines from a discussion of how to discuss politics socially:

"Listen. Give everyone a chance to speak before you break into a long discussion. Speaking from experience, we know it's difficult not to interrupt when you agree or disagree strongly with something that is said.

Avoid an accusatory tone. If a debate ensues, try to keep your tone even and without any hint of accusing someone of being anything negative (stupid, unenlightened, immoral, or anything that can start a heated argument).

Avoid name-calling. The second someone calls another person in the group a derogatory name, the discussion is on dangerous ground. Don't be that person.

Ask questions. If you aren't clear on a point that someone is making—whether you agree or disagree—ask specific questions to clarify. And then give the person a chance to answer without interruption. You may be surprised and learn something when she answers.

Don't take anything personally. Someone may oppose your political beliefs, but if she is your friend, it's obvious that she likes you as a person. Don't consider yourself affronted just because someone disagrees with your political views.

Don't sling arrows or use foul language. If you know you're in the presence of someone who has opposing views, don't take jabs at people who believe what she does and don't use swear words. That will only drive a wedge between you, and you may never be able to repair the relationship in the future. Polite language will keep others listening and engaged in the conversation.

Do research. Before you state something as fact, research the details. Your argument won't stand up if you misquote or misrepresent the facts. Be careful who or what you quote. One thing that we've always found amusing is the comment, "I read it somewhere." We would want to know where you read it and who wrote it.

Find common ground. Don't assume that just because you follow an opposing political party that you disagree on all issues. There must be something you can agree on, or you wouldn't be friends.

Give praise. When the other person makes a good point, even if you don't agree with the general concept, give her credit by saying something like, "I can see your point," or "Now that you put it that way, it makes sense." Saying this shows that you are listening, and you respect the other person's opinions, even if you don't agree."

The Spruce

Quite a difference from most of what we see here, eh?

-Which makes it all the more noteworthy when posts do follow these guidelines.

We do see that too!

Just fuck off to APP!!

 

[cancel2 2022]

That's true. The Fascists here only know #whataboutism.

It's called precedence and past experience, naturally you couldn't give a shit!!

 

[RB 60]

I realize this method of arguing politics rules out at least 95% of the posts on this site.

But really, if you are going to argue a point, shouldn't that point be what you're arguing about?

Not how horrible the person you are arguing with supposedly is?

Maybe you should just shut up and leave. You have half the forum (those you disagree with) on ignore anyway.

 

[RB 60]

Now that we are all on the same side in a war maybe it is time to stop ripping into one another.

It's the humans against the bugs.

The world is the prize.

Can we work together on this?

"Instead of helping out the American people, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are taking the opportunity to promote issues that are completely unrelated to fighting the coronavirus pandemic and the negative impact it has had on the American economy."

https://trendingpolitics.com/democr...us-bill-for-these-3-unrelated-liberal-causes/

Maybe you should tell your fellow commies that...