This stinks. - Page 3 - WritingForums.com - Writing Forums, Writing Challenges, Critiques and Help for Writers

Fides Custos · 04-23-2004, 11:34 AM

La La La!

I'm not using personal insults, I'm using obvious personality traits based on what is seen in peoples writings. Heh, It's cool. I'm still not upset or even really concerned. Those who have opposed me have simple speculated on things they don't know and posed simple minded observations that they cannot really back or validate.

However I think this site needs a debate forum, this has been an exceptionally fun thread.

gabriella · 04-23-2004, 02:08 PM

Quote:

However I think this site needs a debate forum, this has been an exceptionally fun thread.

Hear, hear!

Meghan2007 · 04-23-2004, 03:47 PM

Please excuse me, Shawn you are right, again. Usually I only post replies out of good humor, but I should have realized that when I stopped laughing, I should have stopped posting. Along this line, Fido, I do owe you an apology for verbal agression. Our "discussion" was callow, mean spirited, and low class, at least on my part,--- something that a proper discussion should never be. In short, I should not have been unkind, it was wrong of me to behave that way.

Secondly, we do very much need to have a philosopy/debate section of the forum, although I must say that this thread has not been debate. A debate should be professional and disinterested, with well thought out contentions. In such a debate, it would be fallacious to dismiss another's argument as "simple-minded" merely because they disagree with you. However, I think that this was used in this thread simply to be insulting-- the result of allowing a discussion to decay into personal attack rather than an academic debate. Hopefully in a professional environment, this sort of lingual artillery will be recognized as comptemptible, futile, and unnecessary.

Again, thank you Shawn for making me aware of my actions; fidel castro, I do apologize for those actions; and we certainly need a debate section. Perhaps we should simply bring up interesting topics in the Lounge and discuss them there.

gabriella · 04-23-2004, 04:12 PM

Quote:

A debate should be professional and disinterested, with well thought out contentions.

A debate without bitching and a few carelessly tossed insults has never occured.

Savien · 04-24-2004, 01:23 AM

Ok, a couple of things

1) I think we tidied this issue up nicely, it's good to find a community of mature, good natured, writers.

2) Debate Forum, it's always a good idea of paper, but often comes together in a rather ad hoc and undesirable fashion. Most people abuse the function for their own needs (flaming, farfetched stupid arguements, and racial/religious qualms). A better (in my opinion) idea, as someone else suggested, is to just have us (and any other mature users who are seeking lighthearted debate) start topics in the "lounge". I'd be happy to participate.

-Aaron

Meghan2007 · 04-24-2004, 02:39 AM

Gabriella,
I beg to differ in that opinion. Have you been on a debate team? (if not you should consider joining one, they're good fun and look great on a resume) Anyhow, they manage to get through it without slinging insults or resorting to "bitching". . . But, this is besides the point. Perhaps we should focus more on "discussion" as opposed to "debate." The difference is that with debate, your object is to win. No matter how valid you come to see their argument, you cannot agree with them. With discussion, the object is to learn, and that means being able to agree and change your views/beliefs /opinons when it is appropriate. Moreover, the connotation of debate is much more combative than is the connotation of discussion. . .
Zai jian!

gabriella · 04-24-2004, 07:18 AM

I've seen debating by two politicians, and every now and them one of them would cut the other off, laugh at them, or look at the crowd with a face that said the woman was crazy.

Maybe insults and bitching were too strong a words, but no matter what debate, somebody will look at you like your mad, laugh at you, whatever. I know, because I've had plenty of debates. I don't need to be on a team to have a debate (I have problems speaking under pressure.)

Meghan2007 · 04-24-2004, 11:34 AM

Gabriella, please dont misunderstand me. I dont mean to say that you dont what youre talking about if you havent been on a team. I'm just suggesting that you should consider joining one if you enjoy it as much as you appear to. Plus, its a wonderful way to overcome the pressure thing.

Yes, I agree that politicians are not always the most professional of debaters. But I have to tell you that personally, I have not laughed or given ugly looks to any opponent during a debate round. And although, in a lot of novice rounds, people do do that, you learn very quickly that you get docked speaker points for doing that, and it soon ends.

But all of this really is irrelevant, debating sucks. It really does not facilitate learning or revelation. Discussion, like this one, is much better because its okay to agree with the other person. The emphasis is on growing and learning with others rather than an empty, meaningless win.

Savien · 04-24-2004, 01:19 PM

It's a game of stakes really, humans love to win. You can either discuss, where you learn and come away with a fortified knowledge of your opponent, or you can debate, and get the satisfaction of having your point drilled in and accepted, a the price of losing or coming to a stalemate.

Gabriella, it's a bit hard to equate the kind of debate we would experience here, to a heated politcal debate between two, although decidedly immature, hardset campaigners.

That also being said, I did 2 year of a debate team, it was great fun, especially with some friends, nothing strengthens a friendship more than a good and well played out debate, followed by the after class "ergh, we're idiots, you realized that?"
"Yeah, bout 3/4 of the way through the Roe v. Wade re-enactment"
it's good times, trust me.

Fides Custos · 04-24-2004, 01:34 PM

I have to agree. The discussion was quite crude, on both our parts and I think we should just let it die here regardless of your belief in what I have said I would prefer not to argue it anymore because I have a good feeling their would never be an obvious end should it be allowed to continue.

I also find it most funny that you refered to me as Fidel Castro, wether that be a low blow by comparing me to him. A pun intended to be funny or some kind of error gone horribly off I don't know. However it is not the first time somone has taken notice of the similarity in the names, I however didn't notice this until long after I had been using Fides Custos and am not going to change it because it sounds like the evil Cuban dictators name.

Anyways, yes a Debate forum would be quite nice, hopefully on issues not as shallow as these, glad we have met some kind of treaty... I think.

~Fides Custos.

Savien · 04-25-2004, 12:12 PM

Not evil, just ill-minded and greedy. Hitlerwas evil, Khmer Rouge was evil, people like Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il are bad, but not evil. sorry, just felt I needed to add that.

And anyways, I, by the power vested in me by my keyboard, declare this misguided issue to be dead and buried forever.

Fides Custos · 04-25-2004, 05:29 PM

Not evil?

Well, I have to disagree, Hitler was psycho and quite evil.

However Fidel Castro refuses to let people leave his country and kills them when they attempt such things. He also seperates his people and ensures that the ammount of educated people in his country is never above his military control.

He is quite evil, plus I try not to seperate bad from evil, that leaves a gray zone and that's never good.

Savien · 04-25-2004, 08:37 PM

well, he has made efforts at reform, and although people are not allowed to leave Cuba, they are still relatively well off. If you gave them a choice between Cuba and Rwanda, Cuba would be the place to be.

Evil and bad, its not and either or thing, their simply varying degrees of, for lack of a better word, badness. Its like good and delicious, or mild and hot. Ill tempered-bad-evil, with some in between.

Meghan2007 · 04-26-2004, 12:20 AM

Fievel, I'm really disappointed to hear you say that. The world is not black and white. . .Thats all that philosophy is-- an exploration of the grey.

gabriella · 04-26-2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Hitlerwas evil, Khmer Rouge was evil, people like Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il are bad, but not evil.

Shoot me for saying this, but I don't believe anybody is evil. Including Hitler, including Bin Laden, including Khmer Rouge - whoever that is. Strip their actions and you get belief - belief in doing something would aid their people, or supposedly make the world a better place. Whatever the fuck posessed Hitler to believe that doing what he did to Jews was right, was his belief.

I'm not saying that because he carried out his belief excuses him for what he did. I just think it's bullshit when people say he's evil. His views were twisted and corrupted, because they were based on the same foundation of beliefs that leads to everybody's actions - belief and religion.