I must first say that I did not came up with this, I just saw it on another forum and I thought it would be good to see what the rpgsiters think about it.

QuoteIs there any hope for most debates becoming intelligent and fair?

Or are we doomed to forever face things like intellectual dishonesty, information twisting to fit preconceived notions, ad hominems, etc?

It seems as if divisive demagoguery rules the day; hyperbole replaces real arguments.

Quote from: UmaSamaI must first say that I did not came up with this, I just saw it on another forum and I thought it would be good to see what the rpgsiters think about it.

No, there is no hope, because most debates are open to most people, and most people are drones.

My sense is that it is possible for a debate to include both intelligent, fair, insightful discussion and puerile rhetorical wankery.  The presence of one does not (necessarily) destroy the other.

What I find more dangerous than the actual effect of (say) blatant intellectual dishonesty is the temptation that it provides to people who might otherwise post usefully.  Like, if I see someone tossing out "You're known to be friends with X, and therefore your arguments on quantum computing are crap because X believes in reinstating corporal punishments in the schools," I have two choices:

• 1.  Swallow any anger I feel, look at the reasonable points that have been made in the discussion, take an hour or two to think carefully, then post something constructive in response to them, or ...
• 2.  Snap off an angry retort in five minutes and feel like an avenging angel (until the conversation goes inevitably south)

Sufficiently idiotic posts tend to drag me more strongly toward option #2, even though I should know better.  The danger of complete bullshit is not that it will trump truth, but rather that it will drag people down to the same level, and choke out what they might have contributed..  It is not the presence of stupidity that makes an argument pointless, but rather the absence of intelligence.

Lo and behold, second post, first ad hominem. QED.

Quote from: ImperatorNo, there is no hope, because most debates are open to most people, and most people are drones.

Aw, man.  I was going to say "jackasses" instead of "drones".

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAw, man.  I was going to say "jackasses" instead of "drones".

!i!

You have to be quicker.

Go Back To RUSSIA!!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditGo Back To RUSSIA!!

RPGPundit

What? :confused:

Quote from: RPGPunditGo Back To RUSSIA!!

RPGPundit

That's something my great grandmother would've said.

You can always have HOPE.....

 Whats Likely is a different story....


- Ed C.
 (the Optimist who confuses other people)

I think it's possible, but we'd need to build a culture around it.

Most western cultures (and indeed, most of all of them) are practical and result-driven. We argue to convince and sway people to our cause, whatever it is, believing it to be correct. If that's true, then you're always better playing dirty pool, because you have more rhetorical tricks to play. You want to win, not discuss in good faith.

EDIT: My point being that there's no reason to play nice, even though it'd be, well, nice to do so.

I'm studying the Roman principate at the moment, and I've just read in Tacitus about a Roman senator complaining about the same thing.

It appears that it's the human condition, and has been going on for some time . . .