Debates and skinning
Monday, April 29, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I'm curious as to how people in this community feel about debating. Some people I know simply don't like to get into disagreements or "constructive arguments" (aka debates). Other people (like myself) love to debate (as you've no doubt seen over the years).
In my off hours, I'll visit political, history, and technology sites purely to debate with other people who also like to debate. It's a great way to sharpen the mind's thought process and think through an idea or an opinion because you get in the habit of having to look at an issue from multiple sides which can save you grief later on.
Because I visit so many different "communities" (I'm very active in the game developer community for instance as well as several political discussion communities) it's easy to see general differences in how people act and feel and argue when they feel passionate about something.
It seems to me that most people in the skinning community are generally not into debating. Which is of course not bad at all. The only downside I've seen is the number of people who want to make assertions based on emotion or "gut feeling" but are disclined to have to back up that assertion with evidence or reasoning. It usually comes back to either "Well that's just how I feel" or it'll turn into a flame war.
I think sometimes one of the reasons why some people will see my posts on some site and consider me "combative" is because when I disagree with something, I try to get the person I disagree to back up their assertions.
Example:
"Program X sucks, it's just really slow and buggy."
If I disagree, I'll respond with:
"That hasn't been the case in my experience. What version did you run? What hardware? How was it buggy?"
In over 90% of the cases, I can never get a response. The user typically goes into "Well that's just my opinion, aren't I free to have opinions?" which is known in debate circles as a "strawman argument" (i.e. trying to redirect the debate into a different topic -- I wasn't implying he didn't have a right to an opinion, but merely to explain where his opinion derived from.
One thing about techies is that there is something unusual about them compared to other people. They have an unusually high desire to demonstrate knowledge -- even when they really don't have any knowledge. Hence the situation you see above. Because typically when I do get real answers about why they think program X sucks it's "I used version 1.2 3 years ago and it crashed on my Windows 95 box so I'm going to assume it hasn't changed in 3 years and how it would run on my new Windows XP machine..."
This is particular prevalent in IRC where those most inclined to behave in this way 15 to 21 year olds, will usually confuse ignorant criticism for providing knowledge (everything "sucks" to these 15 to 21 year old IRC people even if they're only vaguely familiar with it - sometimes it only requires hearing someone else who barely knows it to say something sucks for them to say it sucks).
I tend to take the view of not expressing an opinion unless I can back up my assertion with evidence - i.e. because of my debating background, I try to be ready to defend any position I take with reason and logic.
Which brings us back to the beginning - in the skinning community, there is a higher percentage than average of the population that doesn't respond well to reason and logic -- emotion, feelings, instincts and "that's just how I feel" are much more prevalent.
So those of you reading this, what do you think? Do debates make you uncomfortable? Is it your view that people should be entitled to their opinion and speak that opinion without being called on it? Or do you feel that when someone gives an opinion on something that others are equally entitled to call them on it?
I don't think either answer is better than the other. Afterall, on the one hand you don't want people to feel like they can't give an opinion on something without being challenged all the time. And on the other hand it's lazy intellectualism to constantly give opinions based on vague "gut feelings".
What's your view?
In my off hours, I'll visit political, history, and technology sites purely to debate with other people who also like to debate. It's a great way to sharpen the mind's thought process and think through an idea or an opinion because you get in the habit of having to look at an issue from multiple sides which can save you grief later on.
Because I visit so many different "communities" (I'm very active in the game developer community for instance as well as several political discussion communities) it's easy to see general differences in how people act and feel and argue when they feel passionate about something.
It seems to me that most people in the skinning community are generally not into debating. Which is of course not bad at all. The only downside I've seen is the number of people who want to make assertions based on emotion or "gut feeling" but are disclined to have to back up that assertion with evidence or reasoning. It usually comes back to either "Well that's just how I feel" or it'll turn into a flame war.
I think sometimes one of the reasons why some people will see my posts on some site and consider me "combative" is because when I disagree with something, I try to get the person I disagree to back up their assertions.
Example:
"Program X sucks, it's just really slow and buggy."
If I disagree, I'll respond with:
"That hasn't been the case in my experience. What version did you run? What hardware? How was it buggy?"
In over 90% of the cases, I can never get a response. The user typically goes into "Well that's just my opinion, aren't I free to have opinions?" which is known in debate circles as a "strawman argument" (i.e. trying to redirect the debate into a different topic -- I wasn't implying he didn't have a right to an opinion, but merely to explain where his opinion derived from.
One thing about techies is that there is something unusual about them compared to other people. They have an unusually high desire to demonstrate knowledge -- even when they really don't have any knowledge. Hence the situation you see above. Because typically when I do get real answers about why they think program X sucks it's "I used version 1.2 3 years ago and it crashed on my Windows 95 box so I'm going to assume it hasn't changed in 3 years and how it would run on my new Windows XP machine..."
This is particular prevalent in IRC where those most inclined to behave in this way 15 to 21 year olds, will usually confuse ignorant criticism for providing knowledge (everything "sucks" to these 15 to 21 year old IRC people even if they're only vaguely familiar with it - sometimes it only requires hearing someone else who barely knows it to say something sucks for them to say it sucks).
I tend to take the view of not expressing an opinion unless I can back up my assertion with evidence - i.e. because of my debating background, I try to be ready to defend any position I take with reason and logic.
Which brings us back to the beginning - in the skinning community, there is a higher percentage than average of the population that doesn't respond well to reason and logic -- emotion, feelings, instincts and "that's just how I feel" are much more prevalent.
So those of you reading this, what do you think? Do debates make you uncomfortable? Is it your view that people should be entitled to their opinion and speak that opinion without being called on it? Or do you feel that when someone gives an opinion on something that others are equally entitled to call them on it?
I don't think either answer is better than the other. Afterall, on the one hand you don't want people to feel like they can't give an opinion on something without being challenged all the time. And on the other hand it's lazy intellectualism to constantly give opinions based on vague "gut feelings".
What's your view?
 |
|
Page 4 of 4 | |
|
|---|
DavidK
Reply #62 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 3:56 AM
Reply #62 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 3:56 AM
wow - long post for you crae...
you make a very interesting point, certainly one that's worth debating... or would it be dicussing?
you make a very interesting point, certainly one that's worth debating... or would it be dicussing?
jcg
Reply #64 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 8:47 AM
Reply #64 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 8:47 AM
This debate/discussion on the differences between debates and discussions misses the point. Simply calling something a discussion does not relieve the participants of the need to form logical, cogent arguments nor does it change the meanings of opinions, preferences etc. It simply relaxes the rules regarding the formalities of how arguments are presented. Even crea's referenced definition of discussion, descibes it as an informal form of debate.
craeonics
Reply #65 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:33 AM
Reply #65 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:33 AM
That's because that's how dictionaries work. They try to describe the keyword. That doesn't mean it's the exact same thing (even though they list debate as a synonym of discussion), which is also why Dictionary Arguments are pointless. Look at us now...
And yes, I miss the point completely. Off Topic is my middle name.
And yes, I miss the point completely. Off Topic is my middle name.
paxx
Reply #66 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:36 AM
Reply #66 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:36 AM
Anyway...
In MY point of view, a debate calls for a winner, while a discussion involves learning new ideas.
So, since I'm dropping the matter, you could see this conclusion two ways:
- if this is a debate: I forfeited and Frogboy won the debate
- if it's a discussion: I said what I had to say and see no need to keep repeating it ad nauseam
I had/have nothing to prove, I do not pursue to impress people nor to win anything. I just wanted to express my ideas, which I did.
In MY point of view, a debate calls for a winner, while a discussion involves learning new ideas.
So, since I'm dropping the matter, you could see this conclusion two ways:
- if this is a debate: I forfeited and Frogboy won the debate
- if it's a discussion: I said what I had to say and see no need to keep repeating it ad nauseam
I had/have nothing to prove, I do not pursue to impress people nor to win anything. I just wanted to express my ideas, which I did.
Doreen
Reply #67 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:43 AM
Reply #67 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:43 AM
I had/have nothing to prove, I do not pursue to impress people nor to win anything. I just wanted to express my ideas, which I did.
by paxx - 5/1/2002 9:36:19 AM
now you guys are begining to give me a headache! hehe
paxxy isn't that exactly what I said up above? and isn't that called an "open debate" or "true debate"
Crae's Dictionary is prob Dutch so who knows what to expect on our end when he looks stuff up in it...
by paxx - 5/1/2002 9:36:19 AM
now you guys are begining to give me a headache! hehe
paxxy isn't that exactly what I said up above? and isn't that called an "open debate" or "true debate"
Crae's Dictionary is prob Dutch so who knows what to expect on our end when he looks stuff up in it...
jcg
Reply #68 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:53 AM
Reply #68 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 9:53 AM
paxx
You have a point there. Debate does imply winner/loser, discussion merely affords an opportunity to express ones views without the pressure of scoring debating points.
I just felt that it needed to be said that people who express opinions in public forums like this shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone rebuts them. That's usually how flame wars start.
Typical msg board debate on some sites :
"I believe blah"
"I believe opposite of blah"
"Well, you're an %$#hole"
Let the games begin.
You have a point there. Debate does imply winner/loser, discussion merely affords an opportunity to express ones views without the pressure of scoring debating points.
I just felt that it needed to be said that people who express opinions in public forums like this shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone rebuts them. That's usually how flame wars start.
Typical msg board debate on some sites :
"I believe blah"
"I believe opposite of blah"
"Well, you're an %$#hole"
Let the games begin.
Frogboy
Reply #69 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 12:23 PM
Reply #69 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 12:23 PM
I think some guys here need to look up a strawman argument.
All I had to demonstrate is that the accepted definition of a debate is NOT: "1. debate = pointless, closed-minded spouting of opinions, supposedly backed up by "facts", in order to convince the audience."
I believe I stated above that I look at debates as almost a quasi-strategy game in which you are trying to convince third parties but they aren't necessarily or even usually pointless closed-minded spouting of opinions.
The whole thing is semantics. Bottom line is that some people like to utter strong opinions and not be challenged on those opinions while others enjoy challenging the basis for people's opinions.
All I had to demonstrate is that the accepted definition of a debate is NOT: "1. debate = pointless, closed-minded spouting of opinions, supposedly backed up by "facts", in order to convince the audience."
I believe I stated above that I look at debates as almost a quasi-strategy game in which you are trying to convince third parties but they aren't necessarily or even usually pointless closed-minded spouting of opinions.
The whole thing is semantics. Bottom line is that some people like to utter strong opinions and not be challenged on those opinions while others enjoy challenging the basis for people's opinions.
Frogboy
Reply #70 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 12:35 PM
Reply #70 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 12:35 PM
I agree with jcg. He expresses the same thing I feel very succinctly.
Based on what I've seen, too many people like to make baseless statements and when someone challenges them to back them up with evidence will try to turn the argument into "You won't tolerate any one else's opinions."
In fact, you could say that's pretty much how the Customize admins got into their mess. When challenged to substantiate their assertions about WindowBlinds vs. Style XP they couldn't and so resorted to "you just aren't willing to tolerate dissenting opinions." All I was looking for was for them to explain why they felt the way they did with actual facts or experiences. Ashamed that they could not form a coherent argument, they launched into abuse and flame baiting.
That's just a recent example. Other poor debaters I've seen include people like Shoggot who will express very strong opinions but seem to lack the ability to put together a coherent argument. Remember his claim that the GUI Olympics were fixed because I made a complementary remark to Greenreaper? He posted on every website. It was a very flimsy argument that time has shown was false. But since he was already convinced that Stardock is "evil" (his words) it stood to reason that any actions we did must be "evil" as well. But when challenged to substantiate his opinons, he was unable to do so and quickly reverted to the tried and true "I'm allowed to have my opinon!" Even though he could not come up with a single legitimate reason to form his opinion.
I bring up these examples for a particular reason - The ability to provide rational arguments is important in a community. It could be argued that Shoggot's and Custo's loss of prestige and influence over the months is directly related to people seeing this inbability to back up strong assertions with evidence. That was, as humans, having lived in societies for so long, are naturally inclined to respect those who can articulate their opinions based on rational reasoning. And those that cannot inevitably lose respect.
This is one reason why I think that those who hold strong opinions should consider why they have those opinions before airing them in a public forum. For if someone challenges those opinions, one better be prepared to back them up with seemingly rational reasons (evidence).
Of course, in our particular community there is a higher than average intolerance for lengthy posts. In the discussion gruops I belong to, my posts are considered brief and pithy. Here they are long - because qualified arguments with evidence are difficult to do briefly.
Based on what I've seen, too many people like to make baseless statements and when someone challenges them to back them up with evidence will try to turn the argument into "You won't tolerate any one else's opinions."
In fact, you could say that's pretty much how the Customize admins got into their mess. When challenged to substantiate their assertions about WindowBlinds vs. Style XP they couldn't and so resorted to "you just aren't willing to tolerate dissenting opinions." All I was looking for was for them to explain why they felt the way they did with actual facts or experiences. Ashamed that they could not form a coherent argument, they launched into abuse and flame baiting.
That's just a recent example. Other poor debaters I've seen include people like Shoggot who will express very strong opinions but seem to lack the ability to put together a coherent argument. Remember his claim that the GUI Olympics were fixed because I made a complementary remark to Greenreaper? He posted on every website. It was a very flimsy argument that time has shown was false. But since he was already convinced that Stardock is "evil" (his words) it stood to reason that any actions we did must be "evil" as well. But when challenged to substantiate his opinons, he was unable to do so and quickly reverted to the tried and true "I'm allowed to have my opinon!" Even though he could not come up with a single legitimate reason to form his opinion.
I bring up these examples for a particular reason - The ability to provide rational arguments is important in a community. It could be argued that Shoggot's and Custo's loss of prestige and influence over the months is directly related to people seeing this inbability to back up strong assertions with evidence. That was, as humans, having lived in societies for so long, are naturally inclined to respect those who can articulate their opinions based on rational reasoning. And those that cannot inevitably lose respect.
This is one reason why I think that those who hold strong opinions should consider why they have those opinions before airing them in a public forum. For if someone challenges those opinions, one better be prepared to back them up with seemingly rational reasons (evidence).
Of course, in our particular community there is a higher than average intolerance for lengthy posts. In the discussion gruops I belong to, my posts are considered brief and pithy. Here they are long - because qualified arguments with evidence are difficult to do briefly.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 3:54 AM