New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[WinePusher]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

I agree with what you're saying, but you're kidding yourself if you actually think this forum is going to change. There are a few good members that participate here whom I enjoy debating issues with, such as Fredonly and Abraxas, but most of the rest aren't really worth my time because I don't appreciate their debating style. I think all of us on here have a certain way we think everyone should debate but unfortunately not everyone can conform to our standards. I enjoy debating people who 1) actually understand the issue their debating, 2) make actual arguments and actually address the points I raised and 3) write in a sophisticated and clever way. Abraxas and Fredonly meet those requirements, so I enjoy debating them. I ignore people who don't meet those requirements, and it works out great! I would suggest you simply ignore people whom you think aren't contributing anything to the debate. If you see their name or avatar, just skip over their post. That's what I do.

[EduChris]

...I agree with what you're saying, but you're kidding yourself if you actually think this forum is going to change...

The forum could easily change if a new rule were adopted to prevent incessant, ubiquitous, hypocritcal challenges by users who have been here long enough to know better.

What I think you're saying is, "I'm kidding myself to think that the rules will ever change"--and that is a different matter altogether.

I agree that obnoxious posters can be ignored; however, that solves the problem only for me--it doesn't help this site attract and retain more quality participants.

[otseng]

I'm all for ideas on how to improve the forum. And if that includes modifying the rules, I'm open to that as well. But, a rule change should have a very good reason for it. And to modify the rules to basically address one person's debating style is not a sufficient reason to add a new rule.

However, I'm open to posting a guideline to address this particular issue. And we have already issued a guideline that it is not required to prove the existence of God.

I think the best way to address this issue is that posters be very clear in their OP as to what are the assumptions and what is up for debate. If someone does not agree with the assumptions, then they should not participate in the debate. If they want to debate something not related to the topic, then another thread should be started.

Though I would like to have high quality debates on this forum, I don't think it's feasible given the open nature of this forum. The founding principles of this forum are civility and permitting a wide audience. And I'm not sure how high quality debates can be achieved unless there's a restriction as to who can participate. And I'm not sure what's the best way either to determine those participants.

In almost every case with the particular offender in question (and Zzyzx before him) the metaphysical assumption is stated up front in the OP's debate question.

If this is the case, then assumptions cannot be debated in a thread. However, one is free to start another thread to debate the validity of that assumptions (and assumptions for that thread should also be clearly listed). I'm willing to post a guideline regarding this if need be.

It is my firm conviction that making claims, in debate, and then getting all upset when those claims are challenged is what constitutes "debased and degraded".

If a claim is made in a debate that is part of an argument, it is entirely appropriate to ask for evidence and rationale to back up the claim.

To quote somebody who's been around long enough to know better, "It is the repeated pattern of behavior, rather than any one single post, that adds up to incivility".

Actually, I would tend to agree.

If you see their name or avatar, just skip over their post. That's what I do.

This is a good suggestion.

I agree that obnoxious posters can be ignored; however, that solves the problem only for me--it doesn't help this site attract and retain more quality participants.

I think it is presumptuous to claim that banning this particular member will cause the forum to attract and retain more quality participants.

[EduChris]

...banning this particular member...

How did this talk of "banning a member" enter into this discussion?

...I'm open to posting a guideline to address this particular issue...

I am fine with your adding a guideline to the effect that if a debate question pertains to some particular aspect of some overall worldview, then respondents may answer the specific question as posed in the OP without needing to go back to square one and "confirm" the entire worldview before they can address the specific question as posed in the OP. It doesn't matter whether you call it a guideline or a rule, so long as egregious and repetitive violations will trigger some sort of moderator action.

[otseng]

...banning this particular member...

How did this talk of "banning a member" enter into this discussion?

Sorry, I read too much into your statement.

I am fine with your adding a guideline to the effect that if a debate question pertains to some particular aspect of some overall worldview, then respondents may answer the specific question as posed in the OP without needing to go back to square one and "confirm" the entire worldview before they can address the specific question as posed in the OP. It doesn't matter whether you call it a guideline or a rule, so long as egregious and repetitive violations will trigger some sort of moderator action.

We'll need to hash this out.

Why limit it to a particular worldview and not simply state that any assumptions presented in the OP are not open to debate in the thread?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Why limit it to a particular worldview and not simply state that any assumptions presented in the OP are not open to debate in the thread?

When I first came here I am sure I read something someplace about stating your assumptions in the OP. I though it was in the debating tips post but I cannot find it anyplace now. Did I make this up?

If it is hidden away someplace, it should be made more prominent.

If it was only in my head, maybe it ought to to invented.

[EduChris]

...Why limit it to a particular worldview and not simply state that any assumptions presented in the OP are not open to debate in the thread?

Suppose the question in the OP goes like this: "How can a good God send anyone to hell?"

This question in the OP contains at least the following implicit assumptions:

1) God's existence
2) God's goodness
3) The reality of some final punishment

These assumptions are not necessarily granted because the original poster actually believes any of them to exist, but only for the sake of arguing the particular question of how those three elements could ever be fit together in some coherent fashion.

In answering the question, respondents are entitled to explain how their theology handles this issue. They should not need to "prove" or "confirm" that every aspect of their theology is ontologically true, since such matters are peripheral to the OP's specific question regarding internal coherence (as opposed to ontological reality).

Obviously, if the OP question directly pertains to ontological reality, then arguments to that effect need to be presented. But a large percent of the questions in the Christianity/Apologetics sections deal with internal coherenace, rather than ontological reality.

[otseng]

I think if internal coherence is the only thing that needs to be demonstrated, then it should be explicitly stated in the OP. I would assume that most people when they approach an issue would want to go beyond if something is just internally coherent, but if it is also true.

[Mr. LongView]

On some level I would assume that debate assumes the openness for discussion.

I would not debate the existence of a toaster.

God seems worthy of an open minded debate. (At least as a possibility.)

A closed end question leads to a closed ended conversation?

[EduChris]

I think if internal coherence is the only thing that needs to be demonstrated, then it should be explicitly stated in the OP. I would assume that most people when they approach an issue would want to go beyond if something is just internally coherent, but if it is also true.

The ontological truth of the matter would logically be addressed after the question(s) of internal coherence have been attended to, not before. If internal coherence fails, then there is no need to consider ontological truth; but if internal coherence can be demonstrated, then there may be good motivation for comparing and contrasting the competing worldviews.

Normally, this would not even be an issue at all, since most people already understand this (intuitively, at least). We are only having this discussion at all because one individual keeps attempting to dictate the terms of debate for everyone else by insisting that ontological truth must be "confirmed" before any other discussion can be had (but of course he cannot demonstrate the ontological truth of his worldview either).