i have been reading this, and i was wondering why there cant be team debates as long as its known, i know it sounds kind of corny, but if people are doing this, i think it would be better to have it in the open then the shadows, of course we will need the u.n to be present but i think it could work, despite the fact this may help foster the problem.

I think there may be those who do support or oppose other people on the mere basis of who they are or what their political stance may be rather than addressing the issue objectively. The problem, I think, comes to a matter of identification and enforcement.

I agree frequently with Wertz and have occasionally entered into a thread he's participating to support an argument he's put forth. I wouldn't be surprised if some members viewed this to be part of an adversarial system or partisan argument anymore than I sometimes view theirs to be. The difference seems to come when your support comes in the form of objective arguments and presentation of facts, rather than simply slapping somebody on the back or slamming an opposing post for the mere sake of deriding another member's post.

Like card-stacking it's going to happen on occasion. Those of us with a genuine interest in debating the issue rather than arguing to hear ourselves talk will recognize these people and their tactics for what they are. Given enough time, examination of issues will support the truth of the matter and those who have taken the time to deal with the issue will be rewarded when a mere argument of words and/or partisan politics can no longer support itself. My best advice is to just be patient and not allow such tacticians draw you down to that level of debating.

It would accomplish little or nothing in the pursuit of truth in an argument. "Team debating" would likely just result in more people arguing for the mere sake of arguing or opposing different issues for the sake of arguing a particular ideology rather than the issue at hand. I don't know if it's so much that you can't but rather it's preferred that you don't. Such a strategy (sometimes already applied by some perhaps) takes away from the quality of a debate and loses objectivity.

I just want to reiterate:

If you see a problem in a thread, and the moderators, as far as you are aware of, have not taken action, PLEASE report it. I know, for some of you, it makes you feel like a tattle-tale, but we don't always have time to read every single thread. We do have jobs and lives outside of AD...well sort of. For the system to work effectively, we need your help.

Additionally, please remember that moderators are all people with individual outlooks. Something that is disruptive or offensive to you may not hit us the same way, but if you report it, we can present it to the committee, a diverse group with diverse opinions, to determine how to handle it.

No offense, cyan, but: been there, done that. I've been told that I'm one of the most frequent, if not the most frequent, non-staff reporter of posts. My point here is that there are offensive and non-constructive behaviors which are not mentioned in the rules, and that not being in the rules all but guarantees no action by the moderators or committee. I've heard that one member even got banned for "frivolous" reporting, which makes me even more reluctant to report behaviors that are deeply offensive to anyone who cares about debate but are not proscribed here (and in a recent case were actively supported by a volunteer-staff member).

Platypus...my post was more of a stand alone kind of thing. It wasn't a direct response to your previous posts.

I will say that you are one of the most frequent reporters of posts, and it's greatly appreciated. Sometimes we decide action is necessary, sometimes not. It depends on the situation, but we do look at all of the reports, and we respond in a manner that we deem appropriate. Some things happen behind the scenes. Some happen in public.

No one has been banned for "frivolous reporting"

Some people seem to believe that expressing views that disagree with their own is cause for discipline. I come here to debate.

To answer some of Beladonna's questions:



Reported posts go to Admins, Moderators, and Committee members. Each one of us reviews reported posts. If it's something simple, an Admin or a moderator goes in and tries to correct it on the forum. If it's not, it's dealt with in the staff forum by Admins, Moderators, and Committee members. Sometimes this takes a bit more time, because we generally try to get each persons' opinions before taking action.



We all do, which is why we try to maintain a diverse group of members on the staff with a balance between liberals and conservatives. If you didn't notice, we recently added several new committee members and moderators to the staff. This balance should keep moderators fair and honest. If you don't think that we are being fair, report us. We need to be held accountable, as well.

Each moderator, because of differing personalities, has a different posting style. That can't be helped. We are just different people, but generally, we try to be polite on the first warning, and if it's a newer member who just isn't "getting it," we try to guide them along. This occurs on the forum and through PMs. Newbies, whether it's noted on the forum or not, get a lot of breathing room, but I will say that their responses to the administration and the moderators will determine how much. If I PM someone to try to guide them a bit, and they PM me back with verbal abuse, I quickly lose my desire to help them out. I'm human.

I know that it would be nice if there was some standardized way to deal with everything, but there isn't. Each person and situation are individual, and we deal with them on those terms trying as best as we can to be fair and honest.



Personal attacks are taken very seriously, and we handle them on an individual basis, because intent and the severity of the personal attack come into play. Severe attacks usually get a strike. Less severe attacks might be handled differently by just editing out the attack. We usually have a dialogue with both parties via PM before a decision is made.



No. If you see someone attacking someone else, please report it.

Im not really following this thread but I wanted to post something I found helpfull as far as being effective in your arguments. Im a firm beliver in defineing your terms at the outset. The principle and the particulars have to be determined or you will never get anywhere. Now if you are as brilliant as I am you can take some liberties with these rules. One of the unspoken rules are that if your adversary has no idea what the word means then it can mean whatever you want it to. Allways demand that the central term is defined, never let something vital to your premise be assumed, even by you.

"Copi and Cohen list five rules by means of which to evaluate the success of connotative definitions by genus and differentia:

1. Focus on essential features. Although the things to which a term applies may share many distinctive properties, not all of them equally indicate its true nature. Thus, for example, a definition of "human beings" as "featherless bipeds" isn't very illuminating, even if does pick out the right individuals. A good definition tries to point out the features that are essential to the designation of things as members of the relevant group.

2. Avoid circularity. Since a circular definition uses the term being defined as part of its own definition, it can't provide any useful information; either the audience already understands the meaning of the term, or it cannot understand the explanation that includes that term. Thus, for example, there isn't much point in defining "cordless 'phone" as "a telephone that has no cord."

3. Capture the correct extension. A good definition will apply to exactly the same things as the term being defined, no more and no less. There are several ways to go wrong. Consider alternative definitions of "bird":
* "warm-blooded animal" is too broad, since that would include horses, dogs, and aardvarks along with birds.
* "feathered egg-laying animal" is too narrow, since it excludes those birds who happen to be male. and
* "small flying animal" is both too broad and too narrow, since it includes bats (which aren't birds) and excludes ostriches (which are).
Successful intensional definitions must be satisfied by all and only those things that are included in the extension of the term they define.

4. Avoid figurative or obscure language. Since the point of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term to someone who is unfamiliar with its proper application, the use of language that doesn't help such a person learn how to apply the term is pointless. Thus, "happiness is a warm puppy" may be a lovely thought, but it is a lousy definition.

5. Be affirmative rather than negative. It is always possible in principle to explain the application of a term by identifying literally everything to which it does not apply. In a few instances, this may be the only way to go: a proper definition of the mathematical term "infinite" might well be negative, for example. But in ordinary circumstances, a good definition uses positive designations whenever it is possible to do so. Defining "honest person" as "someone who rarely lies" is a poor definition.Definitions in arguments

Some people seem to believe that anything not foreseen in the rules is OK and no criticism on any other basis could possibly be valid. I come here to debate honestly.

Thank you for answering those questions cyan. I am terribly sorry to you, beladonna, for missing them.

I'd like to address a few things here.

First, Platypus, please do not stop your vigilant effort to keep the debates here civil and logical. Your input is very valued. For the record, the banned member to whom you referred did not get banned for his/her frivolous posts (although I grant you there were many). S/he was banned for blatantly lying to us in some of the reports. This particular member, for whatever reason, had it out for a few others here on the forum. This member would report posts by those members reporting things that simply were not true. A LOT of our time was wasted and after enough incidents, we banned that person.

Before the year is out, we plan on issuing an update to the rules and guidelines. We will open a thread to solicit suggestions from everyone prior to doing this. I know you, Platypus, have shown interest in this in a few other threads here. Thank you for those suggestions. We are always learning as we go along.

I also think a little something needs to be said about the recent rash of trolls we've had lately. Sadly, some people make desperate attempts at getting attention and seem not to care whether it be positive or negative. They will post anything merely to get their voices heard. It does not bother them if they hurt anyone in the process.

Unfortunately, a small number of new members used these troll tactics and soon learned such behavior is not tolerated here. Our sincerest 'thank yous' to all of you who PM'd the staff and reported the posts. We can't do this without you.

Another thing worth mentioning, is time delays. If a post you report or PM one of us about doesn't get acted on right away, please bear with us. None of us, including Mike or I, get paid to do this. We are all volunteers. We all work other jobs and can't always respond immediately. We make every effort to be on top of things.

Finally, I agree with nearly everything in cyan's post previous to mine except one statement:

I don't agree that it would be nice. That implies a zero tolerance system and I don't think that's fair. Every time someone signs up here, I remind myself that a real human has chosen to sit down, find our site and register here. I remind myself that person is a unique individual, like no other; and that person needs to be treated in accordance to the golden rule.

I think the time and effort one spends posting here deserves to be recognized. I think some leniency should be allowed for a member who has established themselves as civil, respectful and constructive 99% of the time. Are we to not allow for a 'bad' day?

The one argument often used in rebuttal to our leniency system is that as we grow bigger we won't be able to maintain this. I disagree. That argument works from the premise that it is merely the staff that keeps this forum 'in line.' We don't do this alone.

All of you who regularly post make active efforts to make sure this place stays above par for online debate. Whether you are a reporter of posts, come to the chats, assist people in understanding logic, ask someone to get back on topic or be constructive, are someone who uses the PM to reach out, or a sponsor - you are helping too. We are all in this together. We are all here because we want to debate important issues in a civil, mature fashion. It is up to all of us to maintain that.

Thank you for debating here with us and making America's Debate such a wonderful place.

This is just a minor pet peeve, but it really bugs me when people post a long list of links(ie. 10, 15, 20...) without quoting relevant data from their sources. It indicates to me that people took the time to do a google search on their topic, but they didn't actually take the time to read their own sources.

Debating by link is my pet peeve also. A favorite tactic of conspiracy theorists.

Well, sometimes debating by link is easier for some debaters

My pet peeve is people posting quotes and not deleting the irrelavent parts, especially with a LONG quote

Yeah - this is almost as bad as people who allegedly cite researched facts and figures, then adamantly refuse to provide any source at all - even after repeated requests.

It's easier for the poster, but not for the person who has to wade through all of the garbage. It's one thing if someone is posting one or two links to articles, but ten or fifteen? ...and I've noticed, people who do that don't tend to use credible sources either.

Debating is not necessarily supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be stimulating. Sometimes it takes a some work.

One person's credible source is another person's bogus source

i hate it when any good links you bring are ignored, as to carry on in some empty debate that never leads to anything.
When i post a link, this is me, the link pertains as a whole to the debate 95% of the time, i even go into the site, find the chunk that would pertain to the debate, and link to it. Another thing i dont like about debateing sometimes, is the fact you have to debate against someones personal beliefs, like say i got into one with a republican on track history of the party, if i said that the republicans supported the the king of england, it would no longer be a debate, but that person hateing me, this is another thing that really sucks. Besides that, most of the time its decent to say the least.

While the approach Cephus chose appears to be considerably more callous than others, I would consider it critcism rather than "faith bashing." We have our differences and the thread those comments were made it encourages questioning of what the Bible says. When the criticism is called for by the question for debate, and it remains criticism rather than "faith bashing," I don't see a problem with it, though the approach taken could include some more finesse.

That could be a fatih based excersice video, abs by jesus, i think its worth millions of dollars, can i invest

Yes, to be on topic. Links are great if they are read, otherwise it does little to no good to post them. Then the debate starts a circle, this in turn gets no where. If you try to sound like you know what you are talking about, then the other side asks for "links". If links are then provided, and other side does not read them, then it does little to no good at all.
I take time to read links when put up, i have nothing against reading, its just its no good to put links up for no reason.

The only downfall to links is that some people post scads of them, which is easy for the poster, but time consuming and troublesome for the reader.
A couple of credible links to support your argument, or quoted excerpts are probably all one needs to present a coherent case.

If I might, I would suggest those with the kindness to post links extend that kindness in introducing their links. Listing 4 or 5 links without a title or even a sentence or two outlining what the reader is to expect can be frustrating and push people away from reading provided links. Rather than do, say...Perhaps people can name the link something along the lines of what we can expect...This not only lets us know exactly what we can expect but it also helps us skim through any unnecessary pieces of the article so that we may review only what is directly connected to the topic up for debate.

Even better, in my opinion, is incorporating the above method into your posting. Something like...
Working it straight into our post, I think, helps convey to the reader exactly why you feel the links are important and tells the reader exactly what you want them to come away with when they read your links.

Something to think about maybe.

The personal spat between BillyJean and Cephus has been removed so the discussion can continue.

For members who don't get along, I have a fail-safe solution: SCROLLING. Scroll past the posts of those who you do not wish to debate.

This topic is to discuss different debating styles and tactics in general.

Mike

Well, I personally think that links should be provided to make a point...not make a case.

I've had my posts dissected line by line with the only rebuke being, "Do you have a source for that?". Even if it can be referred to as "common knowledge". People are opinionated on here (or we wouldn't be here) and it's rare to sway somebody's belief's from one direction to another. Demanding scientific analysis forces someone to make an unwinnable case while clouding the entire board up with "noise". I didn't realize we were trying to win a trophy or something here. Geez...it's only a controlled argument here - not open heart surgery.

Furthermore, as so accurately stated previously, one's person's credible source is another's bogus source. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an objective source. Every person publishing the information we repeat is biased in some fashion.

Finally, don't demand sources you won't read or will reject. That will clear a lot of this crap up that people have to wade through. If you want to reject the contents of a source, you should. That would be doing us all a service. But rejecting a source simply because of the source does us all a disservice.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Requesting (demanding?) scientific analysis shouldn't force anybody to make an unwinnable case unless the case they are seeking to present is already flawed from the outset. If they are arguing the truth, rather than uninformed opinion, the provision of scientific analysis in support of their argument should only bolster their case.

It depends on the source to what degree of bias one might expect or claim. If you draw it from a source intent on dealing with matters objectively -- a recognized science institute for example -- the liklihood of bias is going to be considerably lowered. If on the other hand a person opts to take their information from a recognizably bias site, one with an agenda besides pursuing truth, the liklihood of denouncement will greatly increase. I believe this has actually shown itself to be the case on many occasions here at AD.

I agree here, and I believe this to be the case more often than some may realize. While it may be mentioned that a source appears to be bias or carry an agenda, many of these claims I have encountered have also come with a thorough refutation of the claims made by such sites. While we can claim that a site is bias, it benefits everybody if in addition to, or rather than, identify such bias we take the extra step of deconstructing false and misleading claims by such sources.

I disagree, for basic ontological reasons. First, few of the subjects that we are debating can be established with "acceptable" levels of scientific assurance. Even though an individual may not be able to muster up compelling scientific analysis because there isn't adequate evidence to analyze in the first place, or the evidence is so conflicted as to prohibit a scientific consensus, we cannot take that as evidence of a flawed argument.

This, or course, applies to questions that are amenable to scientific analysis. There are many questions that are not, or at least aren't using the technology, knowledge and resources that humanity currently possesses. These questions fall into two primary categories, metaphysical and physical. The metaphysical lie outside the provence of science. The physical questions that are not amenable to scientific analysis are one's such as "global warming, man-made or not?" Evolution, fact or fiction? Homosexuality, inherent or chosen? These are questions that either have way too many variables to get a firm grip on, are untestable due to time constraints, or are both. All the scientific evidence in the world in support of evolution fails to establish it firmly because the theory cannot, as yet, be tested. Ditto with global warming. Those two are dealing merely with the natural world, when we get into the matters of human behavior, both individually and collectively, things get even worse.

My point then is simply this: it is irrational to conclude that an argument is flawed if it doesn't avail itself of easy and conclusive scientific analysis. There are more ways of knowing than simply science.

you wanna know my pet peeve? People who don't use SPELLCHECK!!

I see a post like this & i freak:

You wanna know waht i tink, they shold have blowen up that buncker....


(NOTE): That was an example, not a real post

My pet peeve lately has been people simply ignoring a source or argument. They don't respond to it, don't acknowledge it, don't even click once to follow a link, but merely repeat the original fallacy or assumption as though nothing had happened. I get quite frustrated with that, and I've noticed I'm not the only one. Some people even seem to count on it. They just repeat the cycle of "you haven't proven" (often when the burden of proof lies with them) and "I'm not convinced" no matter what's said in reply, provoking and playing victim until someone falls for the ruse and takes their side. The trolls' technique is as injurious to real debate as anything that's mentioned in the rules, but seems perfectly safe nonetheless.

I almost forgot my other pet peeve: false reporting, claiming something's a personal attack when it's mere refusal to roll over and accept an uninformed opinion as divinely inspired truth.

I find it annoying when I put forth an argument and get a reply like:

Well, you said__________________, so you must be a ___________!!!!

In other words, a big JUMP to a conclusion, which then necessitates space denying the assumption and not addressing the issue. It's easy to take things personally from someone with a hair trigger, jump-to-a-conclusion-and-call-a-name reflex.

In other words, a type of a personal attack? I hate that.

This is a fair comment Hugo.

There is only one thing that 'tickles my nerve ends'.
The way AD conducts itself now has evolved due to some nessessarily brutal actions by Mike and Jaime in the early days.

One of the messages was clear and loud.....................attack the post NOT the person.

We are debating here on AD because we, as individuals, have something to say.....an opinion.....a personal view.....a wish....a hope and even something as ethereal as a thought. In all it's diversity it can be done here on AD in a civilised fashion courtesy of two people.
I respect their wishes.

I personally do not give ten shades of horse *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** if somebody can't spell or if someone attacks my posts in the only way they know how. I admire their passion.

I am not entirely sure of the exact wording of this quote but I believe it was attributed to W.S. Churchill.........."Only dead fish go with the flow".
May none of us become dead fish.

Regards.........Alan

Yes, that is a big problem. People who assume that disagreeing with their position is a personal attack have a problem IMO. You need to be able to separate your beliefs and positions from yourself or you have no business in a debate forum. If you're just going to whine that people are out to get you because they disagree with your position, what are you doing here in the first place.

Closely related are the people who demand 'respect' for their beliefs. Sorry, respect is earned, not simply given. Further, most of these people seem to take anything but complete acceptance of the inherent 'truth' of their beliefs as disrespect. Again, these people probably don't have a place in a debate forum.

What people need to realize is that debate is all about providing evidence to support your side of the argument in order to convince others that you are right. If the best you can do is keep repeating your original claim, like that will make a difference, give up. I'm tired of seeing people who are extremely ignorant of their beliefs and positions still trying to "debate" through logical fallacy. If you don't even know why you believe, don't bother trying to defend it, you just make your position look less tenable.

My pet peeve is someone that is big on satire and nothing is offered for proof. Some obscure website off the topic and a perfectly spelled load of opinion that wont even fertilize the flowerbed isnt really what I call proof. This is especially irratating when arguing some kind of a scientific point of view based exclusivly on opinion. It really makes it hard to defend your opinions when there is no clear standard of proof.

Personal attacks or Ad Hominem (to the man) arguments are a distraction from the topic even though it is unavoidable in a heated debate. A personal attack is basically where you call someone ignorant, or wrong, or deceptive, or condescending without reference to anything but them personally. Then there is no chance of them offering a retort, it really takes the fun out of debate when you do that, at least for me. It cant be much fun for new people who wander on here just looking for a lively debate either. Give a person a chance to be as enlightened as you, tell them both that they are wrong, and how. I dont really care if you use links, the spell check, use some sense and I'll respect your point no matter how strongly I disagree.

If there were proof for anything we debate, there would not be a debate. Proof is undeniable and absolute. Debate relies on evidence, which is debatable and will no doubt be accepted by some and not by others.

I think being inflammatory is ridiculously neccessary, and it is a delightful of getting your point across to the enemy, who usually happens to be ignorant, which usually compells one to join a debate in the first place. Hence, by the time one joins a debate, said debater is angered, and therefore cannot be requested to withhold the anger without first being given a chance to cease the source of his anger via anger inspired remark. Ergo, it is contradictory and also not out of character of a hypocrite to request that one not be inflammatory. Therefore, if she weighs the same as a duck....... She's a WITCH!!!!!

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the concept of inflammatory, as you are surely misunderstanding our purpose here. We are not enemies and these are not battles. We are all expected to debate like mature adults. We do not yell, we do not taunt, we do not mock and therefore, we do not inflame.

Being inflammatory means making remarks that add nothing to a constructive debate and only serve to upset those who disagree with you. If you are here to specifically upset people with your views rather than discuss them in a civil manner, perhaps you are at the wrong forum.

But we are not enemies Brice. We are a bunch of people having a good civil debate here.

If you do not indeed find civil debate a vigorous battle, you are debating incorrectly, IMO, and i feel sorry for you. I do not think of the word inflammatory as Jamie does, apparently. As I have won various awards for debating in school competition, I have found the being inflammatory merely means inflaming the opposite viewpoint's supporter, so that they are unable to respond as well as you have, ensuring victory. Now, doing this can also, if done to a good debater, lead to imminent and crushing defeat, because all one has to do is point out the name-calling, should any occur, and th name caller is doomed. But inflammatory remarks dont always involve name-calling. They are merely comments that, rather than battling a point with another, is disporving another's point, which is, mind you Jamie, a part of civilized debate. I apologize sincerely if this offends anybody, but I am just here to debate about debate. Since our opinion of the meaning of the word "inflammatory" differs, Jamie, we do not agree. If you think a type of comment which disproves another's point adds nothing to "constructive debate", which I doubt you do, you are wrong, since building on a faulty foundation leads to dilapidation and then collapse. If a comment can be disproved, this action should be taken before any other comment is made. Otherwise, the entire debate is useless as it will crumble down in an awful failure of construction all because of one inaction. In conclusion, I think a good debate method is inflammatory remarks, by Brice's definiton.

Brice, debating on this forum isn't necessarily about victory. it's about truth, but if it's victory you're looking for, I can assure you that you will win more supporters by being civil than you will by inflaming your opposition.

Additionally, providing sources to back up your statements and putting spaces between your paragraphs will certainly help.

WOW! Unfortunately this is not a high school debate competition. The point is not to win, but to present your point of view and actually examine other people's points of view in order to reconcile your own opinions. It's not like we are tabulating scores and calling out the names of the winners. IMO, you're in it for the wrong reasons.

BTW, just because you win an argument does not make you right.

WOW Indeed. A) who cares about stupid grammar rules and paragraphs?! B My meaning of victory is not more points than the opponent, but it is in fact truth! TRUTH IS VICTORY! We are in agreement, i was merely mistaken. The point of debate is indeed truth. I am not in debate for the wrong reasons, but rather the right ones: A) to be informed on topics about which i am ignorant. B inform others on topics about which I am less ignorant. That's all. If in a heated debate certain things occurr, the objective is usually still met. Once you are informed, you can form opinions. That is the ultimate objective. Is this "wrong"? If it is, i should perhaps contemplate "suicide" and then become a hermit, living off of nature's land.

Brice,

Explain to me how inflammatory statements evoke the truth please, citing sources, of course.

SAy for instance you, pheeler, make a faulty statement. If i corrected you via a "inflammatory", the end result is truth. Simple, really. Using the inflammatory statement is just a more aggressive apporach to proving one wrong.

Just to be sure we're clear, though, Brice...



That is from the rules.

We consider inflammatory comments to be non-constructive, so that particular tactic is not allowed here.

Mike

Seeing as how this is Comments and Suggestions, I'll offer up some relevant suggestions for everybody to consider.

As this is not a high school debate, none of our debates have defined time limits, and we all have access to continuous information on any topic at our finger tips, it would be good to make the best of every opportunity afforded. Grammar, spelling and presentation (of which the first two are a part) aren't everything, but they may help you retain some credibility even in light of a struggling argument.

Remember, your words are in print here and after your 12 hour window to edit expires, they're here to stay. If you use faulty arguments, insult or otherwise engage in inflammatory practices they will remain for all to see and assist them in future debates with you. Of course, this also presumes that such inflammatory remarks or questionable debating tactics don't earn you strikes or banishment first.

Beyond that, angering somebody you are in a debate with is not tantamount to victory. Often times you'll find that yelling back and forth, or using nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, will not carry you far in a debate. A good many of our debates can be researched through a variety of sources allowing us to debate beyond opinion with the use of facts as well.

Just some things to consider and remember.

Just a small question..

From the 'Standard English Desk Dictionary'. Printed 1969.
inflammatory..........Tending to inflame with desire or passion; (path) of, characterized by, inflammation.

Now as I see it there are two ways of looking at this.........
1) IF the target of the inflammatory remark is the poster then a suitable penalty would be lobotomy, working from the feet upwards.
2) IF the target of the inflammatory remark is the post then ISN"T THAT FAIR GAME?................in moderation............repeat...........in moderation.

This sort of gameplay is normally self destructive anyway but I do understand the short rope nessessary.

Regards........Alan

Inflammatory: 2: arousing to action
Is not every single post, by this definition, inflammatory? People react to others' posts all the time on this forum. Is this wrong? Decide for yourself.

Ok. Final definition as we use inflammatory on this forum:

If your SOLE purpose in stating something here is to make someone upset, you WILL get a strike for being inflammatory. If you happen to make them upset by the use of a well stated, civil argument, that has sources to verify it, then you are not being inflammatory, you are being a good debater. There is a genuine difference here.

Remember this because it's not changing. We will not debate this definition any further.

Actually, that comes off closer to the net definition of a troll, someone who posts inflamatory statements for the sole purpose of upsetting someone or eliciting a negative response. It is the antithesis of debate and, as Jaime correctly points out, does not have logic, rationality or evidence to support it.

I don't know that I have anything against the word 'inflamatory' per se. Indeed, sometimes it is necessary to agitate your opponent in order to get them to see irrationality or illogic in their own positions. That isn't to say that we should confuse 'inflamatory' statements with 'flaming', of course. I think ultimately we need to examine the purpose of the inflamatory statements; do they help to facilitate debate or hinder it? Do they point out weaknesses in the opponent's position, or slander the opponent themselves? Sometimes it's a judgement call unfortunately.

Am I the only one who assumed Brice's original post was intended as satire?

apparently so, my duck-billed friend. Apparently so....