Quote:

---

Posted by where'sSaavik?:
Hi Enterpriser. I just wanted to do a quick clarify on something you said in this thread. It sounded like "discussion" was ok for GTD but "debate" wasn't. It's a distinction I'm not quite following.

I'm probably just reading what you said wrong. But I'm just a little confused. Maybe I'm just having a brain fart moment.

---

No problem.

"Discussion" for me denotes a friendly exchange of ideas grounded on mutual respect, even if one has different perspectives on various issues. One could discuss the merits of various Trek programs, for example, or even criticize another Trek program for not being quite as good in one way or another, and yet maintain openness toward those who disagree.

"Debate" has the connotation of antagonism -- that is, the element of challenge to others to defend their view. Further, "debate" often carries the implication that one side is correct, and the other side is incorrect. Finally, "debates" generally do not work where there is no agreement on the premises of the issues being debated, whereas as often is the case, premises grounded on personal preferences are widely divergent.

Discussion can certainly share certain elements of debate, but the underlying presumption of challenge and defense is greatly attenuated. That, to me, is a central difference between the two approaches.


--------------------
Enterprise Factual Details Star Trek: Galactica

Post Extras:      

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Enterpriser:
"Debate" has the connotation of antagonism -- that is, the element of challenge to others to defend their view. Further, "debate" often carries the implication that one side is correct, and the other side is incorrect. Finally, "debates" generally do not work where there is no agreement on the premises of the issues being debated, whereas as often is the case, premises grounded on personal preferences are widely divergent.

Discussion can certainly share certain elements of debate, but the underlying presumption of challenge and defense is greatly attenuated. That, to me, is a central difference between the two approaches.

---

Quote:

---

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

---

Quote:

---

1. The act or process of discussing by breaking up, or dispersing, as a tumor, or the like.

2. The act of discussing or exchanging reasons; examination by argument; debate; disputation; agitation.

---

A debate is still a discussion whether someone finds it palatable or not.

Yes, a lot of debates are antagonistic, but as long as posters don't get the point where they're attacking the each other as posters instead of the subject at hand, the debate is still releveant to Star Trek and is thus appropriate material for this board, including the GTD Forum.

Post Extras:      

Here's an alternative definition:

Quote:

---

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

---

Source: m-w.com

However, I'm not one to cite dictionary definitions where common sense will do. Common sense suggests that debate has the element of challenge which discussion does not. That was the basis of my comment.

However, I freely admit that it is possible to use "debate" in the sense of "discussion", and vice versa. I was explaining my understanding of the distinction between the two.

Further, where the two are used in contradistinction, the differences between the two are highlighted. For example, if I were to say, "Buy the 'sapphire' sweater instead of the 'cobalt'," the intended and implied distinction would be the subtle distinction between hues. It is true that both are varieties of the color blue, and in some sense, it is true that one can be used in lieu of the other, but that's not the purpose of using the specific two terms when seen in context. The same goes in my message: The difference between "debate" and "discussion" is that one is usually more contentious, and the other is less so.

Of course, it is not my intent to shut down any thread that contains disagreements as to points of view; however, the principle stands that contentious discussion, which I referred to as "debate", is not the aim of the General Trek Discussion Forum.

Hope that helps.

--------------------
Enterprise Factual Details Star Trek: Galactica

Post Extras:      

Quote:

---

Posted by Enterpriser:


Here's an alternative definition:

Quote:

---

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

---

Source: m-w.com

---

I'm not seeing how that definition of debate relates to what your trying to say Enterpriser... it seems like that's exactly what we'd want to encourage ?

Opposing viewpoints are what makes life interesting, to me it seems like you want GTD to be a place where everyone agrees and talks about "What is your favorite starship".

Debate is the heart of a BBS, and the message I'm getting from you is that you want to stifle that ?

Post Extras:      

Quote:

---

Posted by Nate:

Quote:

---

Posted by Enterpriser:


Here's an alternative definition:

Quote:

---

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

---

Source: m-w.com

---

I'm not seeing how that definition of debate relates to what your trying to say Enterpriser... it seems like that's exactly what we'd want to encourage ?

Opposing viewpoints are what makes life interesting, to me it seems like you want GTD to be a place where everyone agrees and talks about "What is your favorite starship".

Debate is the heart of a BBS, and the message I'm getting from you is that you want to stifle that ?

---

I added to my posting, above, so perhaps that will help.

As for "stifling debate", I think you'll find that my messages in the the thread linked to above clearly state that I do not expect that everyone will agree to everything. I do, however, expect that everyone will act in a mutually respectful manner.

I will quote from one of my own messages in that thread:

Quote:

---

As I have stated, it remains possible, nevertheless, to advance the cause of your preferred Trek show without disparaging the preferences of those who like others. For example, if you like DS9 you could cite how DS9 deals in issues of moral complexity, and perhaps how it is different from and, in your view, better than, other Trek shows. Emphasizing the positive aspects of the Trek show you like offends no one, and it can be quite constructive. And in return, others can claim that other Trek shows, such as TOS, have also addressed issues of moral ambiguity, citing examples and comparing them to (for example) similar instances in DS9. In this way, it is quite feasible to maintain an intellectually stimulating and interesting discussion, without the high risk entailed in blanket generalizations concerning the perceived audienceship of a show -- generalizations that are almost sure to offend.

---

--------------------
Enterprise Factual Details Star Trek: Galactica

Post Extras:      

Quote:

---

Posted by Enterpriser:
Of course, it is not my intent to shut down any thread that contains disagreements as to points of view; however, the principle stands that contentious discussion, which I referred to as "debate", is not the aim of the General Trek Discussion Forum.

---

Quote:

---

There are TNG vs. ENT, DS9 vs. ENT, and VOY vs. ENT discussions in GTD as well. It's not the topics themselves that are inflamatory, it's the people who get involved who sometimes are. Whenever a DS9 vs. VOY discussion starts I have to operate under the assumption that an intelligent conversation will come out of it because I don't know the direction that the discussion will take when the thread is first opened. It's only when and if trouble starts that moderator action should be taken. At least in my mind.

Otherwise, in theory, if I decide to close anything I think might be inflamatory without giving it a chance, then the TOS vs. TNG thread would never have been given a chance to develop and contrary to what some people would think, that thread has actually turned out very well. I have to assume the same can be possible with DS9 vs. VOY. As I said before, it's up to the posters, not the topic.

---

This in my mind is how the GTD forum should be run and that's how I ran it for over a year.

http://www.geocities.com/rklordgarth/trekbbs120602.html

I know that Nate feels the same way.

Post Extras:      

Quote:

---

As for "stifling debate", I think you'll find that my messages in the the thread linked to above clearly state that I do not expect that everyone will agree to everything. I do, however, expect that everyone will act in a mutually respectful manner.

---

On this, I agree. Unfortunately, a lot of posters don't feel that way, but shouldn't do we anything unless they cross the line and break BBS policy.

Post Extras:      

I hear where you're coming from, Enterpriser. I was on the debate team in junior high and high school (yeah, me a debate nerd, who'd a thunk it?). And so I was trained in a more formal adversarial system.

But I also had a lot of discussion based philosophy courses in college that broke me of thinking debate was a competition. When practiced well, it's not about winning or losing. It's about getting toward some kind of truth. The dialectic in action.

A "debate" is just another word for "discussion." And discussion is what we're all about. The reason I'm hesitant to discourage "debate" is that I think people will think we're prohibiting dissent. That's not what we want. People are free to disagree, about anything and everything. The requirement is only that they obey the Board Rules, which just means that they have to respect everyone on the board. Not agree with, just respect.

Right now, we're all discussing the nature of these two words. You could also say we're debating them. But even if this were a moderated forum there'd be nothing wrong with our debate, since we're all treating each other respectfully. No sniping, no snarking. It's not about proving one person is wrong and another right. We're just exchanging ideas. Trying to reach an understanding. (It's very Roddenberry-esque when you think about it)

"Debate" gets a bad wrap because so many people do it so poorly. Shows like "Crossfire" or the "O'Reilly Factor" are just about talking heads. There's no incentive to really talk about issues, it's all about demonstrating how smart you are by making everybody else seem stupid. And the "Presidential Debates" that get trotted out before us every four years are positively sad.

Quote:

---

Enterpriser
"Debate" has the connotation of antagonism

---

Quote:

---

that is, the element of challenge to others to defend their view.

---

Quote:

---

Further, "debate" often carries the implication that one side is correct, and the other side is incorrect.

---

Quote:

---

Finally, "debates" generally do not work where there is no agreement on the premises of the issues being debated, whereas as often is the case, premises grounded on personal preferences are widely divergent.

---

Such is life. All meaning is derived from context. It would be nice if we could all agree on common premises, but the nature of our individual experiences makes that impossible. People will always see things a little differently than their neighbor. But that's what makes it fun. To really get into a discussion and exchange ideas and maybe start to see something from a different point of view. It's a cool epiphany moment sometimes.



--------------------
Question Authority.

Post Extras:      

Quote:

---

Posted by where'sSaavik?:
Sounds like we're all on the same page.

---

I think so, and I'm glad.

--------------------
Enterprise Factual Details Star Trek: Galactica

Post Extras: