In the last year, I've noticed something that, while I'm it may not bother others, bothers me a little. Having read many blogs and the blog comments, I've always seen a difference between blogs and this site. In the (wow) seven years I've been a participant on this site, in my mind - with the exception of the Casual Conversation forum, it's never been akin to blogging. And, yet, more and more, I'm reading posts that really make for good blog material and not very good debate material. They aren't responses to rebuttals, they don't really address anything someone has said previously... they're just... blog posts... a journal entry, if you will. Or the posts resemble what one normally sees in blog comments... commentary with little in the way of actual engagement in the debate.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Is this something that should be addressed? If so, how?

I haven't noticed this. What I've noticed is a concentration of focus around certain domestic US issues (which make for rather dull reading for me).

I'm not sure what you mean by blog like posts, but surely any post can be challenged provided it states an opinion...?

Has anyone else noticed this?

Not massively more than ever - it's always been around, but at a fairly low level. Can you give any concrete examples (bearing in mind that not everyone will agree with you, not least the poster themselves! )

Though I wonder if you are talking more about "bloggy" thread openers (which I know the Staff are keen to shut down) or thread responses (where, in very general terms, the Staff will only clamp down on if they're disruptive. If everyone else posting on a thread ignores the offending post or posts, and they carry the debate on as normal, chances are not much will happen to the bloggy post.)

Is this something that should be addressed? If so, how?

Well, there is Rule B VII which says . So if you see a post that you think is "too bloggy", you should report it and let the Staffers take any necessary action.

We have had a recent influx of newer members, most of whom will take a while to get completely to grips with the way works.

is nothing like a blog. A blog is maintained by one person or one character with a group of writers who emulate the one character. is a forum in the classic sense of the word. Everyone gets to participate. No one person or character dominates.

If someone ignores a rebuttal, it can mean that the someone has given up trying to make a point. It can also mean that the rebuttal really wasn't worth a counter-rebuttal. Debaters in all environments, from a family squabble to a formal competition, often let rebuttals go without any further comment.

I do this when the argument heads into unresolvable circles, the is-so-is-not stuff. That's no longer constructive debate, just bickering. I also lose patience with people who think that parsing is actually building an argument.

The thing that lacks is a panel of judges that awards points to debate teams. There's no concept of winning or losing, other than what individuals think to themselves.

It is rather entertaining when debate tricks are attempted here, such as stuffing words into another debater's mouth. That's usually called out right away.

Blogs have changed since their inception as well. Some do have threads of comments that emulate debate, as do the comments on news stories. Perhaps these should be renamed blog-bates or deblogs.

Another thing that needs to be kept in mind is that people get pulled away from debates on this site to do other things, such as making a living.

Has anyone else noticed this?
I haven't noticed it, no. But I rarely read through all posts in all threads, so it may have escaped my notice. (Usually, my attention is focused on a couple of threads at a time that really interest me, and those are always pretty debate-y ones.)

I was on a site once where there was a section for formal debates only - the original post poses a topic for debate in the form "Resolved: X is Y"; the originator states what his position will be and asks for an opponent; if anyone accepts, there are word limits, time limits to post rebuttal, a set number of exchanges, etc.; then anyone who wants to can vote and comment on the debate once it's complete.

I didn't want to mention individual posts so as to avoid finger-pointing, but I suppose it's true that without it, I can't be clear about what I mean and if it concerns me, I should follow through.

A recent post that describes what I mean by blog comment rather than debate post is this:

akaCG - 05/03/11



Here is another more recent example:

Dontreadonme - 05/12/11



Now, neither of these posts is really off-topic; but, it seems to me that these types of posts aren't debate, they seem to me to be something one would see in blog comments. They don't take a position on the information provided and, in some instances, there's no explanation of how it's relevant to what's being discussed.

That's the type of post that I'm referring to. Does that make it clearer than mud?

I really haven't had much time to debate lately.......but I wanted to share news that I thought was relevant to the discussion you were having.

I have a blog, it's not what I'm here for.

These kind of posts, where someone makes a quick post highlighting something they read that's related to the thread, aren't new.

What I've noticed is new, is the number of times a poster will make a quick post highlighting something they read that's related to the thread. I don't know whether people do this because they figure it's better than letting a thread they like/think needs attention fade from the front page. Whatever their intention, I don't think it's a good idea. You can't make up for a decline in active members with questionable quality.

I admit to having made posts like this for that reason in the past and I agree that it really isn't a good idea and should be frowned upon. But, I'm referring to posts in which there is an active debate... especially where that poster has been involved and then suddenly stops debating to interject the above type of posts.


To the discussion we were having...

I don't see much wrong with the general idea of posting information without comment, as long as the information is germane to the thread. It's common when something is going down that we or some of us are following. The post contributes to the debate by adding new information.

What I find a tad useless is posting generally known information from the day's headlines, but then I read news first before checking out what ADers are writing about it. It depends, huh? I probably don't read the same things that others do.

Just about all the blogs I've seen and most news sites have comments where people can give their two cents worth. This site is a lot better because it doesn't have A Blogger and then Reader Comments on A Blogger's op-eds. There's no hierarchy, and so all posters are pretty much equal.

Any of us can bump a thread to the top. None of us can delete a thread. We can all start threads. The only threads that are supposed to be exclusive have to do with specific parties, and yet I've bumbled into them without realizing they were exclusive. My bad, but it does show that software controls are not in place|turned on.

I try to add comments, takes, analysis and so forth when posting new information. It just seems appropriate, but I'm sure at some points I've just thrown something up for general consideration. My attention changes depending on what the current gig entails. Right now it's learning a major software product, so I take lots of breaks to let the learning sink in. That means more verbosity on posts due to the frontal lobes needing to dump. If I were doing something more routine, time would be more important and, like DTOM, there'd be less comment & etc.

I would guess they do so for time constraints. I know I've done that. You want to say something, but you don't feel you have the time to put your own words together. It might be a courtesy to not hound people when they don't respond to something you want them to specifically address, or take it to PMs. They may not have time. They may simply think your points aren't worth addressing. That doesn't mean you get to post "I win!", either. That back-and-forth encourages more rapid-fire posts.

Well, there's less comment and there's no comment. I understand that people are busy and sometimes don't have time to engage in the thoughtful, constructive debate that they are usually known for - or, in the case of other posters, the debate they are known for - but, it is frustrating to come across these posts especially when you were expecting a response to some previous question and that never comes. It comes across as topic-targeted SPAM. Sometimes it is, but I also don't want to misinterpret a situation like DTOM's where it honestly is a lack of time to contribute in the way he normally does.

I suppose, my question is... are posts like that SPAM - in violation of the rules; are they just something that are not violations of the rules, but still not a good idea; and, if so, what's the best way not to misinterpret these types of posts when they are really about having a lack of time to post.

Of course, the other possibility is that this is something that frustrates only me and the appropriate thing to be done is that I just get over myself.

Weeeell... if it is a refutation of a point in their argument and they continue to make the same point, that's holding them to addressing a challenge to their argument that they are ignoring, in which case, the courtesy would be not to ignore those challenges. This is a debate site, after all.