CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
35
She's Right On the Money She's Out of Line
Debate Score:38
Arguments:20
Total Votes:40
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 She's Right On the Money (2)
 
 She's Out of Line (18)

Debate Creator

Kuklapolitan(4312) pic



Are We Guilty of NOT Debating?

 This just in from a new debater here at CD.  Do you find we are guilty of this or not.  Is she out of her noodle or right on the money.  It'll be most interesting to see what you have to say on this topic.

pic Uisgea(5)

At first, I thought that this site might be interesting. But I've had sufficient exposure to the immaturity that dictates the "arguments," and I've lost interest.

I teach rhetoric and argument for a living. I haven't encountered anyone here who could survive two minutes in my classroom.

This site isn't about argument; it's about pissing into somebody else's sandbox.

Stay in your pissy little sandboxes and stop pretending that you know anything about argument.

She's Right On the Money

Side Score: 3
VS.

She's Out of Line

Side Score: 35
Cerin(203) Banned
1 point

Well, those sandboxes sure as hell aren't going to piss themselves...

Side: She's Right On the Money
2 points

But is it the many or the few who piss in that sandbox? I conclude you concur with the lady?

Side: She's Out of Line
Cerin(203) Banned
1 point

There are certainly elements around here that are more interested in hammering home their own political agenda then an honest and civil exchange of ideas (myself included at times). However, I feel she's holding an social internet site to an unrealistically lofty standard. As bad as it may get around here sometimes, it's immeasurably more productive then the "debates" you'd see on Usenet or some random forum that has no moderation mechanisms in place.

Side: She's Out of Line
1 point

You're exactly right. There was/is potential, but it's not worth the effort.

Side: She's Right On the Money
1 point

Sparseley...why do you never put up arguments anymore? Is it not worth your while to try?

Side: She's Out of Line
5 points

God dammit, lady. Just cool it, here's what you do:

1. Do something about it. Get real like many of the debaters on here and only post on things you have an opinion on and when you do, research it and know it to the best of your ability, and if you don't let us know. Much of this site is opinion-based, and that's just how many debates go. Too bad if you don't like it, but it's a democratic society, and you can change it if you try hard enough.

2. Conform. You teach it for a living? Wow, you should be really good at it then. Go ahead and use it in the debates going on here. Or just be like the rest of us and go along with how things go here and make adjustments to yourself instead of nagging everyone.

3. Leave. Yeah, go ahead... That's always an option. If you've been here long enough for only five points, and I'm guessing many of them were lost due to downvoting, you obviously aren't that important of a contributor and you won't be missed all that much.

So... yeah. That's what it's like. This is kinda how it is right now, and, as you might be able to change it, why don't you just try it instead of being an ass about it?

Maybe I'm just getting a little protective (Hah. Protective about a website. But still, I'm kind of passionate about it...) but you all must understand where I'm coming from.

Side: She's Out of Line
3 points

well, she's not out of line. If we were on a debate team a lot of us wouldn't do that well.

I think she's pissed at our inability to bullshit (with the exception of Lawnman who is truly a master debater). We don't debate as if it were a competition, we just debate based on fact and what we've learned. We use philosophy a lot, and really, debating philosophy does piss off the intellectual elitists.

Here's the thing. She's a teacher. I'm guessing an English teacher as well. These people are not that open minded about argument. They believe in a set of rules on how to debate. yes, this is called "Create Debate" but we really just discuss and argue... debating is really all about who can bullshit the other the most. it has nothing to do with proving someone wrong. What we do, on the other hand, is prove them wrong.

Side: She's Out of Line
3 points

This site is far from perfect.

But it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Side: She's Out of Line
2 points

Well, it looks like we are now debating about debating, so I think we're doing okay.

Hey if you don't like the way I debate you can just, ..debate me about it.

Frankly this isn't her classroom and we don't have to debate by her rules. If she doesn't think this site is interesting then she can leave.

There is no question as to "are we debating" because we are. It's a fact.

Now, HOW we debate is up to each of us individually, lets all please, please just worry about ourselves.

Side: She's Out of Line

I thought it was a very interesting comment, albeit a bit haughty on her part. I've already answered her in that debate so whatever she does is up to her. MY RESPONSE!

*Kuklapolitan(2775)

If you're speaking to me, then go back to your pissy little classroom, wherever that is, and pretend YOU know it all. You have a point, but why so haughty? No need to announce your exit. I'm sorry we didn't meet your expectations. We run the gamut of people here and it's not a classroom. The atmosphere is completely different, Uisgea.

Side: She's Out of Line

She's a teacher so she's probably a big liberal who hates the fact that this site is slanted right ;)

Side: She's Out of Line
3 points

dude, this site has way more liberals than conservatives... specifically the atheist liberals.

Side: She's Out of Line
2 points

American Liberals are global moderates ;)

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: She's Out of Line
1 point

hm, I've never ran into Uisgea. I don't know, I only read where she was arguing with wolfman about the definition of murder. It seemed like a lot of words to argue a subpoint that had little to do with the actual debate "would the world be better without religion,"

I mean, I'm not sure if people were scoring at home for Uisgea while he/she was typing, or if there were some official rhetorical rules by which they were being judged that no one knew of,

but it seems to me the difference between a good debator in real life, and a good debator in a classroom,

is the ability to talk to an audience who does not spend their life studying the subject.

I mean really. I do advertising, I don't frame every arguement like a tag line.

So yeah, Uisgea was being extremely arrogant, and from what I read I'm almost positive I could beat them in a debate, as could a few others on this site.

Side: She's Out of Line

Depending on the subject matter, I'd love to have a whack at her too. Make my topic Psychology, Lol!!!

Side: She's Out of Line
1 point

Well it seems as if something crawled up her behind and died.... :) If she doesn't like the website, then why would she bother complaining like that? She should have known we would make a debate about her and bash her! Good idea, Chris! :D

Side: She's Out of Line

Thanks a lot Mick! I was so taken aback by her rantings in that debate I just couldn't believe it. What an arrogant little twit she is...ask Wolf how I feel about arrogance, he'll know!

Side: She's Out of Line
1 point

I'm pretty sure she must be well educated and have a lot of knowledge. Her students may even admire that knowledge. But I hope she can see that her arrogant attitude totally undermines her ability to transfer that knowledge to others, i.e. her students must hate having to listen to her. I had a couple of those "teachers" at university and there is nothing more annoying and frustrating.

I've had sufficient exposure to the immaturity that dictates the "arguments," and I've lost interest.

The word "argument" has many definitions. Amongst others, it can be a fact or assertion offered as evidence to prove something, or it can simply be a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal (from Thesaurus). When you are speaking to such a broad audience such as the one on CD, one should expect to encounter debates that rely more on the latter definition of the word. It's not right. But it's not wrong either. Not all of us have the same educational background. Some people's reasoning will derive from Philosophy, some from the Law, some from Religion and some from the Knowledge Bank of Mum & Dad. Sometimes one type of reasoning appears to be weaker if it is not based on the established sciences. But let me remind you that a few years back, someone could make a very strong argument about slavery and say "it's right because it's legal", "it's right because historically it has existed almost since civilization begun", strong arguments because the facts provided can be proved. Now imagine if someone simply reasoned by saying "I dunno you guys, it just doesn't feel right". On the face of it, its a very weak argument, it does not follow the rules scholars like to see when arguments are presented, no particular proved facts are there to substantiate it, it simply appeals to human emotion. In retrospect however, which one do you think is stronger? Which one would speak to a wider, culturally varied audience and win them over?

This particular type of scholar, and the likes that set the rules for argument, have alienated the general public from debating because they usually ignore the fact the humans are first and foremost emotional beings. I'll be damned if I lived in a society where I wasn't allowed to voice my disagreement because I couldn't substantiate it with scientific/philosophical/mathematical/whatever proof.

She reminds me of kids in the background, when one says "hey you are not playing the game with the rules I'm used to so screw you, I'm not playing". But when her students come to her classroom she expects and demands that they play by hers, regardless of what rules they were used to.

I teach rhetoric and argument for a living. I haven't encountered anyone here who could survive two minutes in my classroom.

You teach rhetoric... wow... well... good for you. Thanks for letting us know how you pay your bills. If you were any good at "arguing" you would see that that particular statement is ludicrously weak at proving that you are any good at what you do. What if I said "I cook for a living", does that in itself prove that I am a better cook than the rest of you? It doesn't even prove that I have extensive knowledge on the field. Nothing. All it says is, someone is paying you to do something. Maybe they are paying you because you are good. Maybe you were the only option your employer had. You may have been the best of a bad bunch of applications for the job. Who knows!

The second half of your statement is the one that reveals the glory of your arrogance. This is the kid in the playground saying "you guys wouldn't last two minutes if you played this game the way I play it at home". Well... good for you. Maybe you're right. So what? So you are good at playing this game with your rules. Who said that your rules make the game more interesting or more valid? Let me guess... other people like you. Great. Now go play home. I pity the students that have to attend your classroom, because I can take a blind guess that with your attitude they probably would rather do anything but be there and have to listen to you. See, whereas other people inspire others to want to listen to them, you have to rely on the fact that they have to be there...

This site isn't about argument; it's about pissing into somebody else's sandbox.

Awww. Let me guess. You made the perfect argument. You went into details. You provided proof and evidence. You have covered all parameters. Everyone SHOULD agree with it. Because your logic is undeniable. And yet... they didn't agree with you.

Damn! Why are these "idiots" not agreeing with you? You logic is undeniable!

If they can't refute your logic then they should agree with it, right?

It's undeniable! Proved! AGREE WITH ME DAMN IT!

So the kid in the playground entered the game. Then realized that she can't win by applying the same strategy and game-play as she does at home. What does she do? She blames the other kids for playing differently and goes home.

How grown up of you dear.

You might find that the reason your students don't challenge you is because they can't wait for the bell to ring so they can get out of that classroom. That, and because they wanna kiss your ass for a good grade. No one has to kiss your ass here though. And that sucks doesn't it! :o)

Stay in your pissy little sandboxes and stop pretending that you know anything about argument.

You just saved me having to come up with a farewell statement to you. Read that to yourself.

And grow up.

Side: She's Out of Line