I would like to suggest that we create a new forum on this board that is designed for those that just want to create a thread with the intent of only bringing up bashing points against the other side. For instance, Turnea's new thread about the evil Mr. Beck has no intention of anything honest except for those that oppose anything conservative to throw rotten food at Beck. This is not only a left bashing right, there are plenty of right bashing left threads, I just used Turnea's most recent thread as an example. I am tiring of the constant set ups in the opening posts for long, pointless political bash sessions so that the creator and the other bashers can make themselves feel better. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go have honest, intellectual political debates? Let's create a forum for those that want to bash the opposing side to create these threads as it appears to be very popular these days.

I'll invite others to chime in, but I am very much against this idea.

IS for civil debate. Sometimes people slip away from that, and we all have to do our best to make sure it doesn't.

If you see a new topic that is a violation of the Rules, please report it. We all also have the option of ignoring topics we perceive as flame-bait. Ignoring something on any forum is the best and quickest way for it to die off and go away. In short - don't feed the trolls! (and for the record, I DO NOT believe turnea is a troll in any way shape or form).

I'd also suggest anyone starting a new topic to review the starting new topics - help topic.

The best topics, IMO, open short & sweet with no personal commentary, and perhaps a few links/citations for reference. The topic starter can always come in later & assert their opinions.

There aren't any rule violations in these posts, but the obvious bias in the questions and the links just stinks to high heaven. I just suggest we open a new forum for the threads and call them what they are instead of stinking up the other forums. I would certainly call the thread I referenced flame-bait and if that makes Turnea a troll, I have no problem pointing it out. There is no intention towards anything civil except between the rotten tomato throwers. It seems there are more and more threads started in the same fashion in the recent months and with it's popularity, make a bashing forum to accommodate.

Don't support it a bit. Somebody will always believe that a certain topic starter is flame bait....and flame bait in most cases is in the mind of the beholder.

Don't believe in the integrity of a topic's questions? Don't participate in the topic.

This comes up now and then doesn't it?

The whole point of is that the sort of debate you can find on other sites ISN'T here. It's a low noise, low troll site. If you want screeching got to FreeRepublic or DailyKos.

As for Turnea being a troll - I don't think he is. I think he's exceedingly leading, but I think I am too and I don't feel like a troll. The "Sucker Punch" post is always going to be here and everywhere else. AH HA you didn't consider this ONE thing and now I POUNCE!!!! It's a debating style, it's annoying, especially if you've been pounced.

What happened to the tradition here that members don't become the object of debate by other members?

I'm a sucker for irony so I'm merely going to point out that this is a bashing thread to bash someone for bashing.

Brilliant.

..and somewhat revealing.

As any seasoned pol knows it's only bashing if someone else is doing it.

I sincerely hope that we won't have anyone slinking away from this thread in a minute because there's a lot to cover.


That's a remarkably defensive assumption.

1.) No one called Beck evil.

2.) What is dishonest about criticizing a wildly inaccurate, inflammatory commentator?

3.) What does this have to do with "opposing anything conservative"?


...and that's a remarkably offensive assumption.

The reasons for the criticism are made pretty clear in the opening post and have been elucidated by other posters.


The premise here is actually a great starting point for a debate question on what we consider "honest" and "intellectual".

Needlessly to say studied neutrality in the face of obvious venality, like Beck's is neither...

...or rather it should be needless to say.

If anyone wants to actually learn something from this thread consider for a moment why pointing that out is not needless.


On a more personal note I create at least a couple kinds of debates.

Neutral debates for issues where neutrality does not obscure an important truth.

or

Leading debate for when neutrality is simply an excuse for entertaining juvenile notions like death panels.

Sometimes is a debate it's best to cut the crap right out of the gate.

Questions?

This isn't a debate, merely a suggestion as the title to the forum suggests.

Gonna throw my twopence in, even though I'm hardly posting.

And say no. There've been plenty of conservative thread-openers that I felt were little more than an excuse to engage in a circle jerk or bait liberals. I knew if I participated there was a good chance I'd lose it and get a strike, so I abstained.

If I can exercise restraint anyone can and a bashing forum will change for the worse.

This is precisely what I'm talking about.

Neutrality would take this clearly false assertion at face value.

However a honest debate would discard such a silly notion en passant rather time wasting time pretending it's a meaningful distinction.

Do you not appreciate the difference?

Isn't calling people out on lies consistent with the barest definition of honesty?

Edited to Add:

I suppose I should mention that if anyone wants to vent there's always a PM, plenty of people have taken the opportunity before and hopefully I can clear things up rather than having them turn into public...ummm.... whatever this thread is....

It may not be a debate thread, but in fact, you have made Turnea the object of debate.

At any rate, I haven ‘t seen any groundswell of support for your suggestion.

Here's an old "Chinese" proverb:

An egg once laid should be left lying.

I have to say turnea that the sting of one liners you post.

Is really annoying.

I'm not sure why it bothers me so much.

I suppose as person of nearly compulsive order you'd think I'd like it more.

However, I do not.

In fact, I find it difficult to read.

The only thing that would be worse is if u used 1337 speak or had a probelm with spellling, typoes, and grammer. Fortunately you don't.

You just have this very odd posting style.

Just saying.

I'd like to report this thread. Turnea is bashing the basher of the bashing thread meant to bash someone for bashing. It's all his fault.

I'm against it.

Everyone has a bias. I think some of the best debates are NEUTRAL questions, and I've always tried to hide my leanings when presenting a topic. So let me explain what catches my interest for those who want ME to participate in their topic. I firmly believe the more bias you have in the headline, the more pointless it is for me to participate. Your mind is made up, and the "agree-ers" will show up to cheer you on. You've basically pooped an opinion, and everyone gathers round. Not interested.

Sure, some of you know where I stand, but the topic should be allowed to go either way. This is a forum I would be more apt to participate in.
IE: Obama's Ratings - How is he doing?

If I wanted to open a question that had ANY bias, I'd post it in the Repulican/conservative forums.
IE: Obama's Ratings - Worse than Bush, Can He recover from the destitude bowels of craptastic public opinion?

And pretty much anything that compares anything/where/how to Bush is usually something I pass on.
IE: Obama's Ratings - Better than GW, whew! That guy sucked.

Even tho I jokinging picked on him, Turnea himself pointed out that he employs two styles of topic starting. One is meant to make a point, the other is for discussion. Unless I have some burning point to lay down and a desire to go against the "agree-ers", it's a love-fest for the like-minded. Meh. I accept that, and respect that - tho that's why some might feel it's "bashing". It's really not. It's leading. I don't usually bother.

However, topics that are lacking initial bias allows the first few responders to set the tone (in some cases, bias) of the debate for the rest of the thread. If my respected opponents were trolls, it'd happen every time.

Actually, as I stated in the opening post, I merely used your recent bash-fest thread as an example, not as a basis. Feeling defensive much?


Not in so many words....


What happened to nuetral opening posts?


I fail to see how this is my problem. If you are offended, then there must be some other direction you expected your thread to go other than the direction it has already gone.

The first responder:


The second:


The third:


Fourth (now bashing millions of listeners/viewers):


Fifth (gets two bashes in on this one!!):



Again, just going to show that the intention is for those that oppose can gather to bash together.


Yeah, I have one. What do you expect to gain other than a bash-fest from your leading threads? Are you trying to make yourself feel better? The thread is based on opinion. You claim to be such a seasoned pol, don't you know that debating opinion of another person has little value?

I also find it annoying to see half joke posts that are posted by someone that thinks they are being a wit- when they are only half-right.
Unless you are "sitting around waiting to be offended"?
What turnea posted about Glenn Becks comments were verifiable, quoted and referenced. There is no room for debate over what he said, "What is dishonest about criticizing a wildly inaccurate, inflammatory commentator?"- do you deny the truth in this comment, neutrality would not allow the dishonesty and lies less dishonest or a lie and would actually obscure the truth.

Again- bashing is in the eye of the beer holder- not one of the "bashes" you "called out" is a bash to most folks- it is the gawd's honest truth- what, Rush Limbaugh isn't a drug addict?

Do you care to expand, or do you really not have anything to contribute?

Once again neutrality would take this at face value.

Honesty would know better.

You answered not a single question posed in the post you're responding to, scubatim, why is that?


The thread's questions are a fair guide for the thread's objective.

I seek an answer to the questions, to gauge the nature and effect of Beck's commentary.

The bashing is part of the answer. The only part you seem to be concerned with.

We bash things that are indefensible all the time and it's about more than feelings it's about establishing the nature of a phenomenon so that it can be discussed honestly rather than burdened with studied neutrality.

As a far far more extreme example would we be expected to debate Father Coughlin neutrally?

As for response style....

It's

A Work

In

Progress

All two of them? I took them as rhetorical since there really isn't an answer that you would accept given you have obviously set your mind to a certain position.

Color me confused as to the point of this thread.

Destroy a topic premise with maturity and intellectual ferocity......or find something else to do.

They weren't rhetorical can you answer them?

A bash forum is a bad idea because thats what the rest of the internet is for.

As someone who likes to quote and respond to individual points, I actually find this an easy format to do so. It beats reading through a paragraph hunting down the meat of the argument.


This.

I firmly believe that is the sole purpose of existence for Yahoo Answers, which IMHO, has the highest concentration of lowest common denominators anywhere.

An example.

By the way, I added a response into Turnea's post, and while I may be criticized with points I've made, I engaged willingly. I don't expect to be bashed or labeled or stereotyped, but I do expect my points to be challenged and my opinions to be criticized. I also expect to be respected despite our differences, and barring one post from one member where I really did go overboard and should probably have been punched in the yambags for it, I feel I've always been treated as such, and equally.

The first question you asked I answered by replying "What happened to neutral opening posts?" If you don't like that answer, that isn't my problem.

The second question "What does this have to do with "opposing anything conservative"?" I guess I have to ask 'what does what have to do with "opposing anything conservative"?' If it means what I think it means, the vast majority of those that jumped in on your bash-fest have a history of opposing anything conservative, including you. Why not just post that thread where it fits best-the Democrat forum?

I thought you "took them as rhetorical".

Moreover that's not the first time the textbook language of projection has been used... curious...


For those who have been on this form for a long time my "history of opposing anything conservative" is bound to cause a few chuckles but for further inquiry why exactly is Beck a stand-in for "anything conservative"?

Yeah, you are well known for your support of conservative viewpoints and policies.

Beck isn't, however you and most of those that have taken part in your thread are self proclaimed liberals, and have very few, if any posts supporting conservative positions.

Actually- we had a casual conversatino game based on the reason you have no real defenders of Glenn Beck- "defending the indefensible"-

if there is a problem with Turnea's post, it is the indefensible nature of the opposition.

I wouldn't think that that would be necessary as I believe it would encourage child like behavior which is why many people came to AD in the first place to get away from that. If you believe that a post or topic is just meant to get your goat then don't respond to it. That's my opinion at least.

Sorry, I missed that game.

Don't you think defining what is indefensible is a matter of opinion? I find most of your positions about stealing the fortunes of CEOs and forcing them to live a life of poverty indefensible, but I am sure you would disagree.

So post if you want to balance it!

There are many threads in this forum that have been posted by conservatives and constituted a bash fest as well. I remember the ones dealing with Senator John Kerry when he ran for President, and there were certainly quite a few about Barack Obama a few months ago when he was running.

They might not be as high-minded as other debates on this forum, but they do appear to be quite cathartic.

EDIT: That "Defending the Indefensible" game thread was fun!

Let's just say you have the appropriate avatar.

For everyone else.... this thread would proceed alot better if we focused on the concept, and not on an individual's examples. FWIW, Turnea is one of the last people on this board I would consider a troll. What that probably tells us, in terms of this thread, is that it is very, very hard to objectively determine what thread is 'bashing' and what constitutes meaningful debate. As Turnea pointed out, there are sometimes threads (and the one being cited is one of them) where the intent is to point out how indefensible certain positions might be. These are NOT, IMHO, bashing threads, as long as the questions themselves are not flamebait (How can one objectively defend this action? vs How do you mental incompetents possibly support this drivel?). Sometimes one can defend the indefensible, leading to meaningful debate (just to throw an example out there, Beck is Beck because that's his media style--sayings almost always draws attention, and that's what you want in the media. Olberman, for example, does about the same thing). Sometimes what is being pointed out pretty much IS indefensible---what's wrong with simply saying so? Anyone who strongly believes everything that comes out of everyone in their camps propaganda is leading a pretty sheltered life--occassionally, its probably good to point this out.

As for the actual topic...what would be the point of creating such a forum? Would flamebait threads really be any better there than any where else? How would we decide which threads belonged there (especially considering that anyone that really did would be violated debate rules already, meaning the thread shouldn't be moved, but rather closed). Who would actually participate? If the intent is only those from that 'camp'..then we already have forums for that---those limited to participation from those supporting that party only.

Creating a new forum for bashing would be a mistake, even though there are threads that fit this category. It would be seen as encouraging such threads.

Sometimes it's frustrating to watch someone or hear what s/he has said and not respond somehow. I'm sure people on the Right feel that frustration as I and some other folks on the Left do. What passes for serious political commentary these days is very strange. Rousing the rabble earns big bucks, apparently, because it appeals to the emotions of the viewers. Maybe it's because I personally do not have a blog or a website that I sometimes relish the opportunity to vent about somebody like Glenn Beck on this debate forum. This venting isn't designed to incense those who disagree with me, though.

In any case, it's not the best example of mature debate, but it is comforting to see that other people feel the way I do about a pundit's outrageous and at times highly irresponsible pronouncements. Guilty as charged.

No to bashing threads. Expressing dislike or even disdain for public personalities isn't bashing anybody but the personalities. Picking on one member isn't fair. However, trying to bash Turnea doesn't seem to work. Trying again is a mistake. Doing it over and over again might be obsessive-compulsive.

Glen Beck deserves boycotting, and he's getting it. Fox News deserves boycotting, and it's getting it. The rest of them deserve to be called out on their lies and distortions, and it's happening. They have the freedom to say anything they like. The rest of us have the freedom to point out what's wrong with what they said.

As for Turnea's style, it's common in journalism, a style designed so that even poor readers can get the gist of a story and good readers can skim. I prefer it to the thick and heavy paragraphs that other debaters use, but that's personal taste.

I'm also personally annoyed by lengthy posts. However, I can deal with my wishes and desires that go unfulfilled.

I don't see the point of a bashing forum myself; threads to criticise a particular aspect of modern politics (or anyone active in it) are fair game, and can and have been created by both sides of the aisle.

Threads that start out with a partisan premise are also fair game; while some people might prefer non-partisan thread openers, they aren't always possible - ZeeSaga's debate on voluntary taxation can only be started with a straight face by either a libertarian, or someone setting out to bach libertarianism, because pretty much every other point of view accepts the idea of compulsory taxation. That doesn't mean it's not a valid topic for debate, nor does it mean it should be coralled into a ghetto that can be safely ignored by those wishing to avoid seeing contrary points of view.

Plus, surely a "bashing" thread is only a bashing thread if nobody posts in support of whomever or whatever is being bashed? Turnea's Glenn Beck thread is only "partisan" because nobody has posted there in defence of Glenn Beck.

Either that's because is a shockingly biased board or it's because Glenn Beck has gone too far for any of the active conservative members to want to defend him in his accusations of Nazism, etc.

While I accept the current active membership might be biased to the left in terms of simple numbers, I defy anyone to credibly assert any extreme bias in any directions overall except expectations of civility and cogent arguments. So I'm left wondering if the thread has ended up looking like a "bashing" thread simply because most members think Beck/Fox deserves a bit of bashing in this particular area, and those that aren't participating can't bring themselves to defend the Beck/Fox position. But even then, it has been possible to broaden the debate to include other partisan media jocks on other parts of the spectrum, exactly as azwhitewolf has done by bringing up Michael Moore and others.

Who bashed Turnea? I don't remember reading anything that bashes him. Maybe I missed it.

1.) Trolls are annoying.
2.) People who incessantly accuse others of being trolls, tend to be trolls.
3.) A thread devoted entirely to trolling would be pointless.
4.) Turnea is certainly not a troll. An orc or a blood elf, maybe, but not a troll. Ok...I think I've been playing too much World of Warcraft...FOR THE HORDE!!!!...what?

I just came from a forum where bashing and trolling are par for the course.

This place isn't even close. Sometimes folks get a little hot with each other here but I consider that simply allowing the human element to show.

Occasionally the questions are narrowly worded to meet the thread starters biases and as such I don't find I can answer without veering away from the question even if the topic interests me. Commonly I don't participate or wait until another poster posts something I feel worth responding to. Composing better questions, that allow a greater breadth of opinion, I think could use some work.

A forum such at this would fly in the face of what America's Debate is all about. It would bring us closer to the rest of the online world of political debate which I and many others here choose not to participate in. As a result I oppose the concept entirely. There will always be times when a poster's personal biases color their topics, responses, etc. That is par for the course when it comes to political discussions / debates. Often, the most interesting and informative debates are born out of the back and forth between those with biases opposite of each other. A bashing, flamebait, tantrum thread would be completely unproductive for as a whole. However, since such venting can be very therapeutic I'd recommend those that feel the need take advantage of the many free personal blog options on the net.

As for the example given for the reason for this topic, I'm sorry, I don't see it. I think the content above the questions did a good job of putting them into context and that Glen Beck was used as an example of the issue the topic focused on not the focus itself. As has been said by others in that very topic, there are commentators on the right, the left, and of most if not all of the many other camps that have acted in a fashion similar to the central focus of the topic. In my opinion, it would require a strong personal bias to see that topic as intended to "only bringing up bashing points against the other side" or that it "has no intention of anything honest...".



I could not agree more.

I believe a "bashing" forum would not be conducive to America's Debate as a whole or to it's intent of purpose.
1.) It would encourage a child-like behavior that is seen on most blogs. There's never a shortage of rants out there.
2.) I believe it would spill over to genuine civil debates because it is allowed elsewhere on AD and the line between them becomes fuzzy.

As it is ... I see ... from time to time ... debates get a bit emotional ... and some people cross that line of "bashing". I will say that when called on it ... most will usually concede, apologize and move on. Sometimes it takes a higher authority to call out the offender ... but when "nipped in the bud" ... normalcy returns pretty quickly. This is what I like about AD. It allows enough "wiggle room" to cross the line and re-establish the rules from time to time. I see nothing wrong with that. As an avid racer ... I understand that you never really know your limits until you break something. Once you've broken it a few times ... you begin to get a "feel" for when you are approaching and just how far you should go in reaching the limit, just before breaking something.

I am not a big poster here ... for a few reasons. One of them is the potential of ME being accused of bashing.
1.) I tend to get emotional with certain opinions and realize this as a potential fault of mine. I have often replied to a debate ... long winded paragraphs ... to only cancel the entire thing after reading my "rant". Thinking those seasoned AD'ers will think me an "off the hook" nut if they read my stuff. This is a battle I must win on my own in order to participate constructively. But, this self criticism is my own personal checks & balances.
2.) I truly enjoy reading the constructive debates held here. I don't take any one side ... but absorb the facts and opinions of many as a way of seeing a bigger picture of the issue at hand.
3.) I don't always have the time to research fact and put 100% involvement into a debate. I often get a few minutes to an hour a day to indulge in reading AD. By the time I pick up on something interesting or a topic I may have some authority on ... the debate is well into it's 2nd or 3rd page and my position has usually been well explained by another debater.

Although I am a Lurker ... I'm no mooch. I have Sponsored AD with a contribution because I believe in the cause and would like to see it continue. AD serves a purpose in my quest for "truth beyond the media" as well as understanding the human condition that reacts to it.

But a bashing forum serves no purpose aside from feeding an otherwise lonely ego.

If that really is true, if there really was no room for debate, then what pray tell was the reason for making it the topic for a DEBATE site? Can you honestly say that the purpose of those questions was to encourage any kind of serious debate? They were simply loaded questions through and through, designed to elicit exactly the kinds of brainless repsonses that were posted. Scubatim's exactly right that it was nothing but a "bash" thread, not a debate thread.