[J_9]

You could not have said it any better Val! PERFECT!!

[Starman]

Ok, let's hear y'all's input.

Asker asks for opinions and users give them.

...then members get into a debate over who's right and who's wrong (remember, the asker is asking for opinions).

Recognizing the goal of the site to be a repository of answers, how far should these debates be allowed to go?...considering they no longer serve to answer the question.

I am asking for opinions here, so let's not get into another big debate. :p

State your opinion and why you feel that way. Pretend you don't even see anyone else's answer :rolleyes:

It all depends on the information which the questioner needs in order to make an informed decision. Some answers are clearly biased or else are purely opinion since they offer no reason to believe them other than it being an answer. In that case another poster, if he knows or feels the answer to be correct, might want to add the supporting material to the first answer in order to show the questioner that he is justified in believing the answer to be correct. If on the other hand the answer is wrong, or is felt to be wrong even though the questioner has expressed belief in it, another poster might want to provide an opposing viewpoint so that the questioner can evaluate and choose.


In any case, an answer that is supported by unbiased expert opinion, relevant and applicable statistics, survey data, testimonials, and /or scriptures, when it is a biblical subject, should be considered more trustworthy than one which is devoid of any of these things. For example, if someone asks is lightning always strikes downward and I say yes because that's what I have always observed, then that's just my opinion. But if someone contradicts me and provides trustworthy sources which show otherwise, then his answer is the one which has more weight. Or if I say I think that Christians are allowed to do certain things and offer no scriptural support and along comes another poster and directs me to a scripture where Jesus clearly prohibits the behavior, then that answer should be given more weight.

When should a debate be stopped? When it fails to function as described above. Sometimes a debate degenerates into ad hominem attacks or an interminable sequence of "Is!"-"Is not!" "Says who?" "Says me!" "Why?" "Because!" Clearly in that case the post has run its useful course and should be terminated.

[valinors_sorrow]

The I didn't see it argument is not supported by you when others pull it, so I am left wondering how thorough your debate is?

[ScottGem]

From a response in the original thread that spawned this one.

It appears quite simple to me - you answer with an opinion - you are not (or should not) be interested whether other people agree or disagree with that given opinion.

If people do not agree with your opinion that is their right - HOWEVER..........
their responding opinion does not come under the the context of the "original question" and therefore should be kept to themselves. As a reader I am interested in the reply - NOT the opinions of other people to that reply. I, like them may not have the same opinion - but that is not is what was asked for in the "original question" :D

Anyway (brushes dust off his hands;) ) my "opinion"..................

A couple of points are in order here. First, the nature of the beast of sites like these is that threads often go off on tangents. One person says one thing and another feels the need to respond. And off we go.

I think things can become awfully constrained is we can't comment on a response to a post just because it doesn't deal directly with the original question.

But even more than that. What happens if you post an opinion and someone else posts a differing opinion that goes against the facts. In another thread, we are discussing the difference between what I refer to as valid vs invalid opinions. I used an extreme example of someone posting the opinion that the mood is made of green cheese. Should such an opinion go unchallenged? How does that help the asker?

[wizzkid89]

(possible irony in this thread?)




Whizz<> I agree with scott

[ScottGem]

Comments on this post:

valinors_sorrow disagrees: The I didnt see it argument is not supported by you when others pull it, so I am left wondering how thorough your debate is?

Huh?? If someone says to me they don't see the basis for my argument, I will try to explain it another way. If they just won't see it, then we must agree to disagree. On the other hand, if they won't acknowledge an established fact, that's a different story.

In the case here, you claimed to have offered a "logical, rational, and reasonable argument" then claimed I skipped over it. My response was to say I don't see it. I don't see a logical, rational or reasonable argument that supports your position.

You added to your post saying; "It is illogical to continue wanting what you can't have and there is no mistaking that you want something you can't have here Scott."

I'm not clear what you think I can't have here, or even what you think I want. What I want is a site that puts the accuracy and quality of the answers above the ego of the answerer. I want a site that allows free expression of supportable opinions. I want a site that doesn't censor expression except for vulgarity and personal insults.

I don't think those things are unreasonable or out of line. Unfortunately, I don't think we have such a site here. That doesn't mean I should continue to work towards getting those things.

[DJ 'H']

If it's an amicable debate then its fine - but once is starts to spiral out of control, (as in squabbling starts, personal attacks, no one can agree on anything) it should be cut! - it just makes the asker wish he/she had never asked the question and probably won't bother again. (thats banking on if the asker is a new member).

Long withstanding members just get fed up.

But I have to admit the denates have been decreasing recently - that is unless I have just been oblivious to it al lol

[ScottGem]

If it's an amicable debate then its fine - but once is starts to spiral out of control, (as in squabbling starts, personal attacks, noone can agree on anything) it should be cut! - it just makes the asker wish he/she had never asked the question and probably won't bother again. (thats banking on if the asker is a new member).

Long withstanding members just get fed up.

But I have to admit the denates have been decreasing recently - that is unless I have just been oblivious to it al lol

I agree to a large extent. I would replace amicable with civil, however. But that assumes its an issue that's debatable. In some cases, it's a factual issue and one party needs to admit they were in error.

[DJ 'H']

That's what I was trying to get at - assuming the issue was debatable then its OK! Not all issues are debatable.

[talaniman]

Sometimes I find it helpful to just concentrate on the original question and as I get better at this forum to express my opinion in a way as NOT to antaganize the poster, since they came for help or advice not judgement. If any interactions I have been involved in require the mods to delete it ,well, not my job, or call (thank god).As long as the standard is the same ,then all of us toe the line at the same place, That's FAIR! (And yes I've been deleted a couple of times but who's perfect) I just move on to the next post.:cool: