I'm just curious about how you think the "typical" member of is different from the "average" person. Obviously this is a grotesque simplification, since there are members of all types and people of all types. However, there are certain trends I notice. When we had a poll about making prostitution legal, for example, a clear majority favored it. This seems to be the exact opposite to the result you would get if you polled the general public. For example, look at the results of one poll:

Link



For discussion:

How do the members of "America's Debate" differ from other folks?

(I take it as obvious that we are a little more interested in politics that the average person.) In general, I would say that the typical member is a little more educated, and somewhat more "libertarian" (in the broadest possible sense) than the average person (who might be said to be a little more "populist" in the broadest possible sense.) (I'm trying to avoid using the word "authoritatian" which sounds so negative.)

How do the members of "America's Debate" differ from other folks?

As a fairly new member, I'd say that we're smarter and better looking.

(One-liners are allowed in Casual Conversation, right?)

All of the children in my Minnesota hometown are above average. This has been so since time began.

The AD participants are like this. They, or we, have honest opinions that aren't shaped by pundit yammerings. I'm pretty sure that some pundit yammerings have come from this board via pro lurkers. It just seems odd that I'll read something here and then similar things come out in the media. It might be that ideas float around like baloons. It just seems odd to me.

The primary reasons AD is different from other sites are the visions of its founding folks. If by the process of elimination this leaves libertarian types of thinkers, that's saying something about modern political thought, or lack thereof.

How do the members of "America's Debate" differ from other folks?

I think members of AD are more libertarian in a general sense in many social issues. On monetary issues, AD members are just as diverse as any other group.

Also I believe that ADers are policy wonks. In that sense, I mean that we all feel that a certain policy is the "right" one and others are less desirable (or harmful). We are (for the most part) very familiar with policy but most of us seem a bit more detached about the effects of those policies.

Why is this? I think it is easier to defend a policy than it is an ideology.

The general population is more apathetic about government. People here tend to recognize the importance of governance and do not take it for granted that our government is impossible to change for the better or worse. ADers are anything but apathetic.

There is a mixture of political status quo two party system people and those who take a step back from that. The second group may explain the differences when opinion polls are taken and compared against the general population.

I think this is an elitist question as a whole. We don't necessarily care MORE than others about the things we debate, in fact I'd say that there are several hundred thousand times more people that care more than we do about politics. Several contributing factors cause this discrepancy in AD's membership and the real population. The first is that poor people don't have access to computers. The second is that these people may not have time. The third is that some don't care to share their politics. The fourth is that some people may not like conflict. We don't differ in any way, and to say that since the (actual) 200 people that debate on this board disagree with the 600 interviewed in Nevada make us psychologically superior/better informed is absurd. I'm likely the only kid at my school that visits this board, and I may be one out of 10,000 that visits this board in my state, and I am certainly not more involved in politics than all of those people.

Really, the only difference is that we have a specific method of debating. It's not even necessarily the right way, just the AD way. Other people probably don't know the AD way to debate. That's it.

I think this occurs in LD debate also, where the kids believe that they are smarter than kids that don't debate, have their own gossip, propaganda, scandals, and really, really bad assumptions.

I agree with blingice. There is nothing superior about ADers other than their willingness to engage in exchanges with others who disagree with themselves. The main difference is that ADers for whatever reason have the time to engage in this activity. Some are retired, some have jobs with downtime to kill, some are students looking for release from the pressure of studies.

How do the members of "America's Debate" differ from other folks?

I tend to be pessimistic in my view of fellow citizens as a whole. I don't believe that AD'ers are superior in any way, but I do think we are different than many other folks. The difference may be nothing more than priorities. We here like to debate, not everyone does. We here like to be informed for the most part about policy, economy and world events, others funnel their energy into different pursuits of knowledge.

Where my pessimism comes into play is this; I believe a sizable majority of the country falls into the 'squishy middle'. Those citizens who take virtually no interest in politics or the processes that run our nation. The ones who either don't vote due to apathy or vote because they were swayed by important issues like which candidate was better looking....
The people who can name all of the finalists on each season of American Idol, but can't name how many or who their representatives in Washington DC are.
I don't see the lack of computers as an excuse either. If somebody wanted to be 'plugged in' like we here at , there are more than likely avenues for them to do so. Instead of spending money on spinners, stereo's, realtree hunting garb or CD's, they could buy an inexpensive computer or use one at their local library.

AD'ers are different than many people. We're not necessarily more right or smarter than anyone else, but we are different.

Any one who has the courage to face a well moderated debate does so knowing full well that there own opinions will be challenged and maybe cast down by the opposition.

What seperates these people from others is that they are not afraid to face that opposition, and beyond this is a willingness to consider thoughts that many other people might consider unthinkable.

I don't think people at are braver than most, but I hope we are at least able to listen and consider to every aspect of an argument. Even those we don't like.

I don't see anywhere in here where Victoria mention how ADers are superior. Just different. (mentioning educational level doesn't immediately mean better or worse)

I come to AD rather than one of the more partisan boards because I want to be challenged, and I want to challenge others.

Too often I think we believe what we believe without realizing why we do so. This doesn't invalidate our beliefs but it does make them less strong in my opinion. Not in the sense of strongly held, but how can you convince someone else when you don't know why you believe that yourself.

Growing up I enjoyed long trips with my father because he would ramble on about all sorts of topics. He was a science teacher and so most of them were related to that but it wasn't until recently that I realized that his talking to me was less for me and more to solidify the information in his mind. To bring it out in the open for him to look at his own reasons.

That is one of the reasons I come to AD. To set out my understanding and beliefs and to have them challenged by others. I can't say that I have changed my mind a lot about very many things but I have gained a better understanding of why I believe what I do, because I am forced to explain and defend it.

I know we have our share of partisan blowhards. But I think the thing that makes AD different is that we have more than our share of those who are willing to argue with an open mind.

How do the members of "America's Debate" differ from other folks?

Ok - granted that we :AD:ers generally have the time to access the site. Granted also that the most frequent posters (we still have many more readers than poster, I believe) have additional time above that level to intake ideas from the news media, including the blogosphere, think about them, and write posts about them.

But I don't think that's the only thing that makes us unusual.

There's something unspoken that is NOT a universal value held across the world - which seems to be based on the idea that not only are we allowed and expected to have an opinion, but that we are allowed and expected to at least attempt to justify them.

We don't all have strong opinions on every single issue - not all of us read or post on every thread that appears here. (Except CubeJockey )

But the culture of (I can't think of a better word than culture) is that if you can't justify WHY you have a particular opinion, then the rest of us are entitled to make value judgements on the validity of your opinion.

It's very rare for people to opine on things here and then, when challenged for evidence - be it hard evidence, or just evidence of some kind of supporting rationale - just say "I don't know, but it just IS, okay"?

Generally, people here HAVE some kind of rationale for why they think what they think.

And I think that is relatively uncommon. How many times, in real life, do you get into debates where someone says, "well, it stands to reason" or "I don't have to justify myself to you"? Far more often than you'll ever come across it in here, I'll bet.

I set a lot of (and an increasing amount of) store by the Socratic idea that "the unexamined life is not worth living". It isn't that I don't have to justify myself to you but I absolutely think that I have to be able to justify myself TO MYSELF.

If I cannot construct the semblance of a case to justify a particular opinion or belief that I may hold, it either means I'm inarticulate, or stupid, that there IS no case, or that I haven't thought about it enough to be able to make one. I have no reason to believe I am stupid or inarticulate, so it must be one of the other two.

So, if I have any views that I can't explain, I either have to find a way to do so - even if I don't convince another living soul - OR I have to formulate another view that I CAN justify. Sometimes that means reading the views of other people here on , even if the position I take is opposite from the one they show.

I think this thinking is implicit in almost any type of formalised debate, and particularly so here on , where we set less store on rhetorical flourishes and so much more store on being able to back up our arguments with evidence of some kind.

And I know I'm biased, but I honestly think that this aspect of the people on is better than the world at large, where so many people seem to ignore things they don't like or understand, or hold views they've been told by their parents, teaches, preachers or friends without ever once questioning them.

I think there is one way that someone who participates in this forum is different then those that participate in debate at large, or other forums. ADers are actually searching to learn from each other.

There is not a lot of "hit and run postings". People here really want to know what makes the other side ticks, which, to me is extremely refreshing. In "the world" I don't think many really care to know why someone thinks the way they do, they simply take for granted that their view is superior, and that is enough.