Intellectual Threads.....slipping???

[Furore]

Like for one, I think it'd be a good idea for anyone who is posting a thread here link to sources for any facts they may put on the table. Then anyone replying to them with a counterargument or whatever must do the same thing.

I can only ever see that being a pain in the ass in all honesty. Look at some debates between me and Sasquatch as an example. We only use things that we know to be more or less accurate, but we end up bringing several dozen points up that would be a pain to find sources for. I'd go nuts trying to find articles completely agreeing with what I've said in some cases, especially where a topic is one with several possible correct answers.

Once you have something like that established, then it weeds out all the people who simply want to argue their opinion and not the facts. In fact, it might force those people to actually take a look and do a little research themselves to grasp an understanding on the subject of the thread.

I thought we were arguing our opinion based on what we thought was more or less fact in the majority of debates? Or maybe that was just what I was doing. Yes, it's good to make sure you know what you're talking about before you start typing, but ultimately most people will show bias to some level towards most things. Differing opinions don't always have a less valid one.

Also, we might want to filter the threads that come through this forum. For any thread that isn't really something someone can discuss like discussions where most people agree with one another, then it can be sent to general chat or something. Either way, the topics that come through here need a core to stimulate intellectual ideas. Of course, this also includes getting a moderator who can keep things civil.

Agreed. But I believe that happens sometimes, don't it? I've seen some topics moved.

Lastly, I think if others can agree, maybe we should make ID a forum only privileged members can post in? The idea might've come up before, but if we want a greater amount of respect and healthy, civil debate then people need to prove they can debate without resorting to any of the things we generally dislike. We can even sort of host stickied threads that talk about the most controversial discussions and with it those privileged members can post in them and talk.

I'm afraid I must also disagree here. That would be censorship of sorts, and even the most annoying or idiotic of people can sometimes drop a gem that excluding them wouldn't allow. Usually if someone says something stupid it's either quickly squished, or just ignored. I think some people should attempt to be more civil (especially when targetting a member solely for a negative response), but in the end people will do as they will and only allowing a small sample of people an opportunity to express themselves in intellectual discussion can be seen as a form of elitism as far as I'm concerned.

[Zardoch]

I can only ever see that being a pain in the ass in all honesty. Look at some debates between me and Sasquatch as an example. We only use things that we know to be more or less accurate, but we end up bringing several dozen points up that would be a pain to find sources for. I'd go nuts trying to find articles completely agreeing with what I've said in some cases, especially where a topic is one with several possible correct answers.

Well, when someone makes a thread that will discuss an intellectual subject where he/she states a few things, some sources would do better to give other people something to read to understand where the person is coming from. Yes, it would be a pain in the ass, but that's what research is really. It's a pain in the ass to go searching through this and that, but eventually you find something that will help others learn. I'm not proposing for someone to post a dozen links, of course.

I thought we were arguing our opinion based on what we thought was more or less fact in the majority of debates? Or maybe that was just what I was doing. Yes, it's good to make sure you know what you're talking about before you start typing, but ultimately most people will show bias to some level towards most things. Differing opinions don't always have a less valid one.

I know. Everyone does have a certain level of bias. What I'm suggesting allows people to gain the knowledge of forming a less bias opinion and then expressing the said opinion in a manner that does not say, "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right." By allowing people to do the research themselves, they gain something that everyone can benefit from and not just throw an opinion out there. If we wanted to let everybody to do that then we can keep ID as it is and let debates spin into nothing but a circular argument that never ends. In debates, we're arguing our opinion that has been shaped from DOING that research I speak of. Don't wanna do the research? That's fine, but if you ultimately don't know anything because of the lack of research then what good is your opinion? (Also, this doesn't mean you have to have a college degree to have an opinion. Simply knowing both sides of the arguments is better than taking a side with faith backing your belief and not a healthy wish to learn from the experience.)

I'm afraid I must also disagree here. That would be censorship of sorts, and even the most annoying or idiotic of people can sometimes drop a gem that excluding them wouldn't allow. Usually if someone says something stupid it's either quickly squished, or just ignored. I think some people should attempt to be more civil (especially when targetting a member solely for a negative response), but in the end people will do as they will and only allowing a small sample of people an opportunity to express themselves in intellectual discussion can be seen as a form of elitism as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I'm not too entirely happy about the idea, but the way I see it is respect is earned and so should the privilege to debate. I'm not saying we should form a little group of 'elites' that are all powerful, all-seeing. I'm saying that everyone should PROVE that they can jump into such debates and behave themselves. And I'm not saying we should censor peoples' opinions, but if there are people who only argue to as you say provoke a negative response, then they shouldn't be allowed to post in ID.

[Furore]

Well, when someone makes a thread that will discuss an intellectual subject where he/she states a few things, some sources would do better to give other people something to read to understand where the person is coming from. Yes, it would be a pain in the ass, but that's what research is really. It's a pain in the ass to go searching through this and that, but eventually you find something that will help others learn. I'm not proposing for someone to post a dozen links, of course.

If you mean backing up opinions with sources when questioned on them, I have no problem with that. But I fear there'd be a line crossed if they were a mandatory thing a person always had to stick to. And then there's the old why research again what you've known from the start? If questioned on something, or stating something that may be harder to swallow, then back it up with sources I reckon, otherwise keep it more link free. Otherwise the tedious level could be...
...OVER 9000!

I won't bother quoting the second paragraph as it's lengthy, but in response I'll say I feel most people who are serious contenders *DO* do their research or have in the past. The reason many discussions seem to go circular is that different branches of research can reach different conclusions, some of us rely solely on our beliefs at times, and some are just stubborn (like myself at times) when what we've brought up can't be sent off the board properly. It's the people who know a good deal on the topic who keep it going in circles more oft than not I've tended to see.

Yes, I'm not too entirely happy about the idea, but the way I see it is respect is earned and so should the privilege to debate. I'm not saying we should form a little group of 'elites' that are all powerful, all-seeing. I'm saying that everyone should PROVE that they can jump into such debates and behave themselves. And I'm not saying we should censor peoples' opinions, but if there are people who only argue to as you say provoke a negative response, then they shouldn't be allowed to post in ID.

I just don't see how any such system could work, but then you could always surprise me as I know you're certainly resourceful enough. But I'll need some kind of a working model explained before I'd have any chance of agreeing with it. Either way I look at it, some may be excluded, and there may not be an easy way for them to prove they are ready to act as others wish them to. And when I said censoring, I'm only meaning that there may be no way for some to share their thoughts if they're deemed unworthy. That may not just be the ones that are trolling in a way that could be seen as questionably legit.

[Zardoch]

If you mean backing up opinions with sources when questioned on them, I have no problem with that. But I fear there'd be a line crossed if they were a mandatory thing a person always had to stick to. And then there's the old why research again what you've known from the start? If questioned on something, or stating something that may be harder to swallow, then back it up with sources I reckon, otherwise keep it more link free. Otherwise the tedious level could be...
...OVER 9000!

More or less, yes. When people make statements that might otherwise be deemed an opinion, some sources to help validate their statements would be useful. That's what I pretty much suggest.

I won't bother quoting the second paragraph as it's lengthy, but in response I'll say I feel most people who are serious contenders *DO* do their research or have in the past. The reason many discussions seem to go circular is that different branches of research can reach different conclusions, some of us rely solely on our beliefs at times, and some are just stubborn (like myself at times) when what we've brought up can't be sent off the board properly. It's the people who know a good deal on the topic who keep it going in circles more oft than not I've tended to see.

Honestly, most of the people I've dealt with rarely have done any research at all or simply repeat what is commonly stated. I.E. An evolutionist claiming the fossil record has the best evidence for evolution when there are a lot of flaws that go along with that statement. Don't get me wrong, I know there are a good handful of people here at TFF who, indeed, do do research. Compared to the amount of people who don't, however, they at least outweight the serious contenders 2 to 1.

Anyway, any circular argument to me seems pointless. If it never ends, where does learning begin? Yes, I could conclude some researched viewpoints meet different conclusions, but it doesn't mean those conclusions are an irrefutable. The only thing that is irrefutable is fact. That was my point though, because plenty of people confuse their opinions as facts when they seem more like speculation. That close-mindedness (to all sides of each argument) is what causes the circular argumentation that never stops because some people just don't want to accept anything if their opinions are challenged.

I just don't see how any such system could work, but then you could always surprise me as I know you're certainly resourceful enough. But I'll need some kind of a working model explained before I'd have any chance of agreeing with it. Either way I look at it, some may be excluded, and there may not be an easy way for them to prove they are ready to act as others wish them to. And when I said censoring, I'm only meaning that there may be no way for some to share their thoughts if they're deemed unworthy. That may not just be the ones that are trolling in a way that could be seen as questionably legit.

Honestly in science, any question is worthy. That's really the whole point because we use science to answer serious questions. The problem begins when people ask questions that aren't really relevant to the topic at hand or they simply are just trolling. That and the attitude I spoke of is quite common, especially on the internet. So what I'm suggesting is not so much a 'system', but something that tries to keep things civil and on topic. If anything most people should be able to earn the privilege to post here. It's just the few that might cause trouble, which is why I suggested moderation. We don't want people who will turn threads on their head and force a good thread to close.