A new thread I started, regarding whether or not President Bush considered himself to be one of the Bad Apples he mentioned when the Abu Ghraib story broke. And it was closed with a, in my opinion, a lame excuse.

The question was clear and concise, with supporting links. Is censorship practiced here?

The Thread in question is here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=10714&hl=


What precisely dose pass for a Non-Vague question then?

link



Sorry, but the above quoted question was anything but clear and concise.

To start with, it is confusing. The part after the comma is actually a statement of opinion that just happens to have a question mark after it. So, if we attempt to rectify the question to what you might have been going for with the debate topic we will need to drop that second part.

That leaves us with:

What happened to President Bush saying that it was only a “Few bad Apples” who were behind the Torture?

I Think vague is a PERFECT description of that question.



It appears to me that all 5 definitions of the word Vague apply to the "question" you attempted to start a topic with. Now, you can choose to claim censorship and attack the character of those who run this website, or you can choose to re-examine your question and make another attempt at starting the topic, this time with an effort made to ensure that everyone other then yourself will be able to understand what it is we are supposed to be debating. In situations like this, the choice one makes is usually an excellent indicator of their maturity level.


Edited to add:

For the record, I think there is quite possibly an excellent debate topic to be found within this issue. Someone just needs to invest a little time to craft it in a way that is clear, concise, and within the rules of


Considering that this is not the first time you have had this problem on Americas Debate ( link ) I would HIGHLY recommend that you take a moment to review: the rules, especially The Survival Guide. I think you might just discover the error of your ways if you invest the small amount of time it will take to review these two highly useful sections of this website.

That question appears clear a day to me.

When the Torture was exposed the President claimed that we don’t torture people and that it was the work of a few bad apples.

Now we have this same individual wanting to veto a $442 Bill, because some Republican Senators want to eliminate the torture of detainees.

So *** happened to Bush’s claim that we don’t torture people? Because if we didn’t, then why would he care if interrogators had to follow interrogation methods only authorized by a new Army field manual? Unless he was lying through his teeth.

Is that like queer-eye for the straight guy; but with grammar instead of hairstyles?


*edited profanity

It may be clear to you-- but I had no idea what you were asking.

QUOTE
What happened to President Bush saying that it was only a “Few bad Apples” who were behind the Torture, it would appear that he now wants to join their ranks?

First off, it looks like you combined a question with a statement. And I have no idea what you mean in the "statement" portion when you say it appears he wants "to join their ranks". What does that mean? He wants to be a bad apple? I don't get it. Or as OverlandSailor points out-- if we look only at the question portion, it certainly is vague.

I too would suggest reviewing the Rules and the Survival Guide so that you can reformulate your debate question so that we can all understand your question and can participate in the debate.

I second overlandsailor, but I would also like to add a few tips, even though I am no moderator. I assume by reading his links that you are already aware it is customary to provide background information at the beginning of the post, followed by a question or two, rather than starting off with a question and then providing background. By the time the reader gets to the question, they should already have the context they need to understand the question.

It would seem at the minimum, the question would need to be answerable. Furthermore, it should be asked in such a way that different people can contribute different answers to the question to establish their viewpoints on a topic before proceeding to discuss the answers others have posted. In short, it is a leading question.

This question is important because it gives structure to the debate that will take place in the topic. A well-formed question has the best chance of leading to a well-formed debate. A freeform question leads to freeform arguments that don't really work toward a goal and seem to devolve into flame wars. It may seem hokey at first, but requring a good question for debate is one of reasons why debates seem more substantive than the more freeform sites.

Let's take another look at the question:

What happened to President Bush saying that it was only a “Few bad Apples” who were behind the Torture, it would appear that he now wants to join their ranks?

What we have grammatically (and I'm probably one of the worst volators of grammar on the site) is a runon sentence composed of a question followed by a statement. Converting the comma to a question mark and the question mark to a period, we have:

What happened to President Bush saying that it was only a “Few bad Apples” who were behind the Torture? It would appear that he now wants to join their ranks.

Grammar is not the primary problem. A direct answer to the question would be, "What happened to the statement is that he made it, it was reported in the press, some folks blogged about it, and now it is referred to here." But perhaps that was not the debate you were intending to inspire with the question. Now, a simple rewording:

Does President Bush now appear to want to join the ranks of the "few bad apples" he said were behind the the torture at Abu Graib?

This is a yes or no question, but I've seen several good topics begun with a yes-or-no question. A follow-up "Why?" or "Please explain." is implied by the nature of the site, but it is helpful to add it anyway.

But even this question is only borderline, because it may elicit more flame than constructive commentary. If this question is valid, then chances are that you have found some resources demonstrating that Bush has engaged in behavior similar to that of the Abu Graib guards. From your post, it would seem you are implying that Bush is complicit in the mistreatment of prisoners because he is opposing and threatening to veto bills requiring more transparency in holding detainees. Would the following question elicit the answers you are seeking?

1. Do you support or oppose the bills in Congress mandating more transparency in holding prisoners and monitoring their treatment? Why?

2. Do you believe President Bush's threat to veto these bills is inconsistent with his earlier characterization of the Abu Ghraib scandal as the actions of "a few bad apples"? Why?

These might not be perfect questions, but I don't think they would result in a topic being closed.

The next thing you need to do is learn a few cool BB Codes, particularly the "url" and "quote" tags for citing outside sources. Using these codes, your quotes would look like this:

According to the Washington Post article White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees, President Bush is opposing measures to mandate more transparency in prisoner treatment.


Reuters reports that the White House threatens veto on detainee policies in a $442 billion spending bill:



Questions for Debate:

1. Do you support or oppose the bills in Congress mandating more transparency in holding prisoners and monitoring their treatment? Why?

2. Do you believe President Bush's threat to veto these bills is inconsistent with his earlier characterization of the Abu Ghraib scandal as the actions of "a few bad apples"? Why?

I personally think the existing process that exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal and led to prosecuting the perpetrators is probably fine-- any extra regulations are probably just politicians trying to look like they are actually doing something to fix the problem. However, if you were to begin a topic along the lines of these suggestions, I don't think your topic would be as quickly closed.

Now if you step back and look at the issue concerning the original post for a second maybe you can see the problem.

Your original question did not come close to anything you posted in the above quote.

Perhaps if the original question had be worded something like:

Why would President Bush threaten to veto a $442 Billion dollar bill because he is against a provision with in the bill that some claim would eliminate the torture of detainees when he himself has said the the problem with torture of detainees was limited to "a few bad-apples" and not a matter of US policy?


Instead of:


What happened to President Bush saying that it was only a “Few bad Apples” who were behind the Torture, it would appear that he now wants to join their ranks?

then we might have avoided the entire problem and been able to debate this issue in a reasonable and mature fashion.

Edited to remove: unnecessary critique.

Edited to add:

You made some excellent points Jack22. If they had be posted before I started my reply I would not have bothered as it appears you covered all the bases.

<edited out response to edited out personal attack>


To the rest of you; I’m cluing in. I have to be precise with no leeway for any multiple interpretations of the question I’m trying to ask. Or at least that’s the way I’m reading the examples given me. And the background information goes 1st.

Thnx.

Alright, so, I deleted the personal attack by Hugo, edited out the response to the personal attack, and edited out the profanity. Kuni has a legitimate question, and even if it wasn't a legitimate question, there is no reason to call names.

Overlandsailor, Jack22, and Hayleyanne hit the nail on the head on this one. We require a clear question to debate to make sure that your topic can be as productive as possible. We close topics when either the questions to debate assume opinion as fact, or when the author editorializes within the actual questions.

The easiest way to avoid having a topic closed as 'too vague' or 'no question to debate' is to make sure it follows the help topic Starting New Topics:



Mike

I have to agree with the others- on many sites, hijacking, flaming and no specific issue to debate, or going off on tangents is the norm, not the exception- in any game or contest, there are rules- some define the game- this is one for this site!

I don't even disagree with your premise, and I understand the start of your statement- but I re read it several times and I was not able to understand what you were asking- or if your punctation was a typo!

I have had subjects closed becaues of vagueness- even when I was struggling to make the question as precise as possible-

when writing, as opposed to verbal conversation- it is much harder to make your point - and is the essence of good writing skills- the ability to communicate- good writing is not forcing your reader to interpret what you are trying to say, but rather, using your words carefully so there is only one interpretation of the idea you are trying to communicate.

To add on to what Mike said - it would also be a good idea in the future to follow the recommended action place there by the moderator or administrator which always reads:


That really is good advice, and if you have an interest in debating the topic you started then PM'ing the staff member who closed the topic is always a good start to get an idea of how you might improve the topic.

If you can work it out with the staff member and clarify or change your questions topics can be and frequently are re-opened with edited questions.

However in this case you might look to some of the posts here for ideas on how to refine your topic.

I noticed that in light of this it would be even better to rephrase:


as:

1. Are these bills in Congress necessary to mandate more transparency in holding prisoners and monitoring their treatment? Why?

2. Is President Bush's threat to veto these bills inconsistent with his earlier characterization of the Abu Ghraib scandal as the actions of "a few bad apples"? Why?

It proves Mike is right-- the best way to avoid trouble is always to read the rules. They are well written, fairly applied, and produce good results. If the moderators were overeager to censor divergent political viewpoints, I would have been banned long ago. Every time I have been warned, I have deserved it. Common civility does take a little getting used to, but I'm learning as fast as I can.

Another point: Whenever I encounter something I want to debate on , I first look through the existing recent topics and usually find one that has already been started. But if I didn't see something relevant, I wouldn't hesitate to start a new topic I believe others might be interested to debate, so long as I was willing to take a few extra minutes to review the rules and format the starting post properly. However, I have never actually started my own topic. I should have once or twice (because I was inadvertently taking another topic off-topic), but someone else actually started the new topic. I'm not too shy to start a topic, its just that has so many good contributors who recognize good topics for debate and type faster than me. Or they've invented a way to read my mind, even though my foil cap.

The only transparency a man needs; is after a long day at the bar and upon arrival home, your old lady greets you at the door wearing nothing but saran wrap.


What needs to be debated is not the veil that some are trying, through manipulation of language, throw over the torture we engaged in; but that there are actually people who support torture, and it would appear that the President is one of them.

So rest assured, I’ll raise the topic again; but using the guidelines you all were so kind to point out to me.