Treaty for Semi-Peaceful Debate

[Noodle]

I propose the following treaty:

The Politics Forum, halflife2.net,

Within this forum, no group, person, or philosophy shall be ridiculed in a manner that assumes common knowledge of inferiority. Posting here requires that one uses actual logic, and possibly some facts. This includes, but is not limited to, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Atheists, Libertarians, Gays, Foreigners, etc.

More importantly, one may not used the perceived inferiority or superiority of any group or person as a basis for their argument. Example: "You are wrong because you are Communist." (hint: don't do that)

Also, once one has used logic to make a point, the superiority/inferiority of any group shall remain irrelevant to the debate. It is counterproductive and annoying as hell.

Be watchful of your own pointless assumptions. Even if it is something commonly hated. Example: "Fox News is a piece of sh*t." (hint: Probably, but don't portray that as assumed common knowledge. It's pointless and annoying.)

To sign this treaty, simply post below. Mocking me or this thread will count as five signatures.

 

[Raziaar]

Have five signatures, because that is a ridiculous idea.

I'm not going to withhold from poignant criticisms of even ridiculing conservatives, liberals, atheists, christians, jews, muslims or whatever when stupid things are done by those groups.

The only thing that should be prohibited is unnecessary hateful speech, or racism, as it's always been.

I'd say this forum is fine as it's been all these years. Heated.

 

[The Monkey]

Who the fuck are you?

 

[Escaep]

I'd say this forum is fine as it's been all these years. Heated.

Which is fine for people who's beliefs aren't the ones constantly being ridiculed. Look at the number of "LOL CHRISTIANITY IS STUPID" threads that have been posted just this week.

Gets annoying for some people which I don't think many people take into account.

 

[Eejit]

Please, tell us more about how we should conduct ourselves in this forum Mr July 09. The whole point of discussing things is to find out who is in the wrong so we can mock them.

 

[Noodle]

The only thing that should be prohibited is unnecessary hateful speech, or racism, as it's always been.

I'd say this forum is fine as it's been all these years. Heated.

Yeah, the unnecessary hateful sh*t is pretty much what I'm going at. The blatant insults, not criticisms. There's a difference a large amount of people can't seem to grasp. Escape pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Eejit, I was under the impression that the mocking was to point out a relevant flaw or something. There should be SOMETHING in it beyond sadistic entertainment.

 

[Eejit]

Eejit, I was under the impression that the mocking was to point out a relevant flaw or something.

This is good, but what is best in forums?

 

[Noodle]

Mocking without a purpose is troll behavior. We don't want to go down that slope, do we?

 

[Eejit]

Mocking is the reward for good debating.

 

[kineaesth]

Mocking is the reward for good debating.

You're ugly and fat, you ugly fatty.


I see what you're trying to do here, but I'm not sure it makes much sense to try to decree someone. The sensible people will continue to present sensible arguments, and the silly people will continue to say things like "communists are ruining videogames"

 

[jverne]

So you finally realized that even "liberals" can act like pricks? The word liberal might be a bit incorrect, i really don't know what an outsider would classify the average member on HL2.net

I'm not pointing fingers here.

 

[Noodle]

Exactly, Eejit. What I am opposing is use of mocking pre-debate, or (this is the worst) as a debate technique.

EXAMPLE:
Wrong: "A is stupid because it is A."
Correct: "A did B, who was C's girfriend. C is a NFL linebacker, therefore A is stupid. And dead."

It also works if someone is being deliberately stupid, but that's obvious.

There are around 4 conservatives on here, and I'm 2 of them.

Kinetic, I was trying to create a more effective "Thou Shall Bot Be a Douche" thing, but put it in terms that specifically relate to some common debate tactics here, where the mocking serves as an antagonist instead of a reward for intelligent debate.

 

[jverne]

There are around 4 conservatives on here, and I'm 2 of them.

What exactly makes you a conservative?

 

[Noodle]

What exactly makes you a conservative?

On here, I'm pretty conservative. Elsewhere, I'm average.

I hate the libertarian party, but that's where my ideals tend to drift. Individualism.

 

[jverne]

On here, I'm pretty conservative. Elsewhere, I'm average.

I hate the libertarian party, but that's where my ideals tend to drift. Individualism.

While we're at it...labeling someone is probably the first step on the road to mockery.

 

[Noodle]

I intended it as more of a relative measure, but okay.

 

[theotherguy]

I propose the following treaty:

The Politics Forum, halflife2.net,

Within this forum, no group, person, or philosophy shall be ridiculed in a manner that assumes common knowledge of inferiority. Posting here requires that one uses actual logic, and possibly some facts. This includes, but is not limited to, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Atheists, Libertarians, Gays, Foreigners, etc.

I will mock anyone that I please, including you. I will also "assume common knowledge of inferiority" if the idea presented is so utterly absurd that the mere presentation of it is worthy of mockery. If you come into the forum proclaiming "teh Jews dun 9/11," I will make fun of you.

But I will also provide evidence and rational arguments as to why the person I am mocking is worthy of ridicule, if the argument is deserving of that bit of respect.

More importantly, one may not used the perceived inferiority or superiority of any group or person as a basis for their argument. Example: "You are wrong because you are Communist." (hint: don't do that)

Of course. This is a logical fallacy.

Also, once one has used logic to make a point, the superiority/inferiority of any group shall remain irrelevant to the debate. It is counterproductive and annoying as hell.

One group of people proposes idea A, which is absurd and wrong. The other group proposes idea B, which is true and right. I shall mock the first group and praise the second if I so please.

For instance, Flat-Earthers propose that there is a giant worldwide conspiracy lying to us and telling us that the world is round, when it is in fact flat. Round-Earthers accept the commonly known fact that the world is round. Flat-Earthers are clearly lacking in basic mental skills. I will not hesitate to ridicule them.

Be watchful of your own pointless assumptions. Even if it is something commonly hated. Example: "Fox News is a piece of sh*t." (hint: Probably, but don't portray that as assumed common knowledge. It's pointless and annoying.)

Okay.

To sign this treaty, simply post below. Mocking me or this thread will count as five signatures.

Why are you important again?

 

[Noodle]

Yeah, some of that wasn't worded well. Although you make more sense than some. I took back the part about no mocking afterward.

I'm not that important, but I like pretending.

Amendment to debate rules: No putting words into other people's mouth. Example: "So you're saying [illogical hyperbolic twist on previous post]."

 

[jverne]

Amendment to debate rules: No putting words into other people's mouth. Example: "So you're saying [illogical hyperbolic twist on previous post]."

Some people should really learn this!

 

[Solaris]

This is just a lame attempt to copy mechas thread on logical fallacies.

 

[Polaris]

Word of advice, don't try to make the rules on the forum with 180 posts.

 

[Sulkdodds]

There's a 'legal' principle on the politics forum: here, refusing to back up your point with argument when you're asked to, but continuing to post anyway, counts as trolling (because the purpose of the politics forum is to argue). Where it breaks that or any other rule, 'mockery' will always be punished. If you don't think the rules are being enforced properly you can use the report function.

I won't close this thread because of its petitional nature, but note the lack of any posters actually signing up to your idea.

 

[jverne]

Well at least he had good intentions, i'll give him that. However he's much too young to have known.

 

[Vegeta897]

Hi I'm just going to join your forum and then propose this brand new idea that obviously nobody has ever thought of, and that you guys obviously don't have moderators to enforce, it's called "intelligent posting" and I advise you all to do it.

 

[Absinthe]

The logical fallacy thread is all that's necessary. If you want to have a civil, "serious" debate over a topic, those are guidelines you should be able to abide. It's when you ignore them that you're pretty much fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, who doesn't like a good "**** you" every once in a while in discourse over politics?

 

[jverne]

Come on guys, he got the lesson, don't be so mean.

Remember what Jesus said, do onto others what you wouldn't others to not do onto you.

 

[Raziaar]

There are around 4 conservatives on here, and I'm 2 of them.

You best leave then if you don't want to get converted. This place turns you into a godless atheist liberal.

I used to be very conservative and very religious.

I'm now neither. I wouldn't exactly credit it solely to hl2.net, but it helped.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What Raziaar is trying to communicate to you with his wide and fearful eyes is: "please...kill me...killlll meeee...."

 

[Noodle]

Well at least he had good intentions, i'll give him that. However he's much too young to have known.

No, I'm just a Liberal Arts major.

I won't close this thread because of its petitional nature, but note the lack of any posters actually signing up to your idea.

Well, the petition idea mainly just sounded better than "hey guyz what doesw you think about my new idea???"

 

[No Limit]

...

I'll tell you what. If you are willing to defend your religion in any thread I will be as nice as you want me to be.

 

[Noodle]

I have nothing to defend... Religion isn't to be argued like politics. Maybe if there was a religion forum section (unlikely) I might discuss, but I don't really have much to say.

 

[Solaris]

I have nothing to defend... Religion isn't to be argued like politics. Maybe if there was a religion forum section (unlikely) I might discuss, but I don't really have much to say.

And yet, you type so much...

 

[Noodle]

And yet, you type so much...

Touche.

...although I meant it regarding religion specifically.

 

[Ravioli]

This is the internet. The ideas you are proposing would curl up in a dark wet corner and slowly die in agony.

 

[Warped]

I guess I can try and go for a mellow thread for a change, although that usually isn't how things go in any thread I enter.

Also I assume we can join hands and rid the world of Scientology someday

 

[theotherguy]

Religion isn't to be argued like politics.

Why? Religious ideas and opinions are like any other ideas and opinions. They may be right, wrong, sound, or unsound. All ideas, political, religious, scientific, artistic, or otherwise, should be up to the scrutiny of rational debate.

 

[CptStern]

Mocking without a purpose is troll behavior. We don't want to go down that slope, do we?

you just joined a few months ago make a handful of posts and then expect us to follow your rules? lol. this is politics, ridicule of the other person's pov is a long tradition that predates the internet. just because you're overly sensitive about a few topics doesnt mean that they get any sort of special treatment. hell I'm sure you could find enough issues that meet that criteria that it would make debating next to impossible. religion never gets a free ride in my book, they're just as open to criticism as the next organization. the only reason why you think it should be off the discussion table is because you'd be sore pressed to defend your pov logically. religion is anti-logic

 

[Eejit]

No, I'm just a Liberal Arts major.

Eww...

 

[Acepilotf14]

lol
char

 

[Noodle]

Also I assume we can join hands and rid the world of Scientology someday

I support this.

Why? Religious ideas and opinions are like any other ideas and opinions. They may be right, wrong, sound, or unsound. All ideas, political, religious, scientific, artistic, or otherwise, should be up to the scrutiny of rational debate.

I can see that in some respects if it was being applied to something else, but to me it'd be like arguing race in terms of black vs. white. Not a good idea.