"Eighty Percent of all questions are statements in disguise."

I was hoping to bring up a little pet peeve that I've had here at and it has to do with the way that questions are framed in many of the topics. What I am noticing more and more when I enter topics is that the questions seem antagonistic and sometimes combative instead of objective. Usually this is due to some sort of preface to the question that skews it and forces you to either agree or disagree with the topic starter. I am not sure if i am able to articulate this correctly but its like some posters formulate questions in a manner that is simply trying to make a statement instead of foster healthy debate on an issue. I'm not pointing any fingers as I have probably been guilty of this in the past, but its certainly not something that should be encouraged imo. I don't know...perhaps a provision should be added to the survival guide on how questions should be asked in order to be as objective as possible or something like that?

Why, sure yaoure ablteo!

But seriously, I've definitely noticed it, too. It happens most often in cases where posters are asked to make predictions about how a certain issue will be received. All that does is enable the poster to make a big, but sublte, argumentum ad populum while shutting out challenges to popular prejudices on the grounds that it would be "off-topic".

Sorry leder. Don't know how I missed this. You are correct that from time to time members attempt to open a debate that appears to be a blog rant in disguise. We try to keep that type of debate off the board but it's all a matter of interpretation too. We've actually intended on updating the Starting New Topics Help Topic to reflect exactly what you suggest but just haven't gotten around to it. In the meantime, if you see a topic that you think is a rant in debate's clothing, report it. If we don't hear from you, we sometimes miss things.

Thanks!

I know what you mean Jaime, but I am talking about when the questions are not so much a blog rant but just framed in such a way that they make open debate difficult. I really hate to use examples as it some might take offense. But I suppose it would like asking "The Chargers have the best running back, the best record in football, a great defense, and good coaching, is there any reason they will not win the Superbowl?" When it could just be simply asked "Who will win the Superbowl?" You see the first question is not conducive to debate while the second one is and I am noticing a lot more of the former style than the latter.

To be fair Leder- I understand your point- but, in politics, sometimes the very essence of the question comes from the statement- though, only a couple of us are pro-writers- I think, overall, even in leading questions, most debaters can get around the bias in the questions.

Debaters can often "get around the bias", that is true. But, the most constructive debate starts with less biased questions. We've occasionally closed threads that were actually too biased to be constructively debated at all (rare, but it happens). Ideally, no bias should be shown in the initial questions to be debated. Here is an example of a great opening to a topic. It's perfect, IMO. Clear questions, unbiased and informative. Later, Jules answers his own debate questions during the course of the thread. It is during the course of the thread that he attempts to persuade, and I think it's very effective. That's optimal, and what to strive for...but it doesn't always happen, and I confess I'm guilty myself.