OT but not OT
I have observed that it is very difficult to maintain a civil conversation about subjects that are very important such as pro-choice/pro-life and tobacco regulation.
Poster's come with strong, often emotional, opinions and they are unwilling to make the effort to debate their points by calmly stating basic assumptions, supporting documentation, and logical deductions and agreeing to disagree where it is appropriate. Instead, feelings are often hurt and "enemies" made.
This would not be a cause for concern if it were restricted to OFF TOPIC issues. Unfortunately, similar behavior has been evident when posters have had strong disagreements about relevant issues. In fact, most threads seem to be either dominated by one general opinion or by a slime pit of flame throwers. I believe that neither situation really serves the best interests of thread members.
I wonder if we all could be better served by establishing "formal" debates on relevant subjects on these threads. As in debating, people would be randomly assigned to uphold the pro or con of the issue and emotion would be limited by the fact that arguments do not necessariy reflect the true feeling of the debaters and are therefore not personal. Also, a formal debate format would allow the thread to establish criteria for presenting data and arguments and to steer debates toward civility and usefulness.
I realize that I have proposed a radical departure from the usual. I, also, subscribe to the idea that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Some of us have been doing very well with our investments and might be inclined to maintain the status quo. Others might have hoped to receive more value from these threads than their results show. I, for one, have always found that the "news" posts are far more valuable than the "opinion" posts. I wonder if there is general agreement to this and if formal debate could be used to raise the value of opinion posts. |
