I think this may be a bad idea
In my opinion I think when we debate we should maybe try to not use words like in my opinion or I think because we lose the power of our words that way. I think that it may sound a little bit more forceful but in my opinion that is good. In my opinion we all possibly respect each other's idea which may be right.

Right Way
We shouldn't use words like "in my opinion" or "I think" because we know that what we say is our opinion and what we think. It sounds more forceful but that's good. We all respect each other so why should we hide behind "I think's" and possibles".

We can just say Abortion is wrong instead of I think Abortion might be wrong or We can legalize Marijuana instead of I believe we should legalize Marijuana.

What do you think? Please don't respond by saying "I think" I promise I won't cry

That's just bollocks*.

Forceful enough?

*British English slang. Somewhat off-colour reference to testicles, though not the kind of thing that would make all but the most genteel blush. In this usage, it's roughly equivalent to a longhand "*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***", i.e. a "forceful" way of saying "I think that you are talking nonsense". Politeness costs nothing.

**ducks and runs for cover from the expected sharp moderator admonition. I just couldn't resist the gag.**

When addressing issues, I don't think it is essential (unless one is implying that one is citing a fact rather than stating an opinion). When addressing personalities, I think it is sometimes wise to qualifiy things a bit: "It's my opinion that President Bush is reckless and irresponible" sounds marginally better than "Bush is a frickin' cowboy." But that's just my opinion.

I've already been trying that. It's easy but not very easy.

Rancid Uncle, in English courses, it is taught that "I think" and "I feel" weaken the argument when writing a persuasive paper, but I do occasionally use them along with "in my opinion" when I'm trying to soften things up a bit. Sometimes being forceful isn't the best way to get the argument across, especially in an informal debate. Each person has to make a judgement call on tonality when they are writing their individual posts.

There are times when IMO is used to fend off a potential counter. When I say IMO social security is unconstitutional I fully realize that the USSC has disagreed with me. IMO's should not be used routinely but their is a place for them. I probably use it in one post out of a hundred.

"IMO", "I think", and "I believe" (etc.) are (as I see it) relevant in this sort of forum because we cannot always determine tone of voice in writing without such descriptive/qualifying tools (especially in public message board forums where individuals are debating and responding to one another's beliefs/ideas). For example, when debating a hotly-contested issue such as abortion or a constitutional interpretation, the two examples below might be present:

1. "Abortion is murder because..." OR "The intent of the framers of the constitution was..."

2. "IMO, abortion is not murder because..." OR "I believe that the intent of the framers of the constitution was"

To me (and I assume I'm not the only one) #1 could easily be seen as hostile and portrays beliefs as fact. I would think the majority of political debates are based upon beliefs, so we should express those beliefs without trying to pass them off as facts (it just weakens the argument, as far as I'm concerned). I frequently use such qualifiers on this sort of forum because otherwise, one might think I'm stating a fact OR one might misinterpret my tone of voice.

To each his/her own, I suppose

Is this just your opinion or do you have links to back it up?

I agree that stating something is your opinion weakens the argument (i.e. opinions are not often backed up by solid facts). Reaching a CONCLUSION from a set of facts is subtlely different from reaching an OPININ from a certain set of facts.

Following up from the views expressed so far, I'd say that I find it far more irritating to see someone express an opinion (or a conclusion) without explaining WHY they think that (or have concluded it) than any amount of "I think"s or "IMO"s.

Of course, used to excess they can be an irritant, just like any other textual tics.

I tend to use 'in my opinion' etc, because I have been burnt on other forums for supposedly expressing my own opinions as fact. I think that is the crux of the issue. In political debate we are constantly expressing opin9ons and attempting to support them with various facts. Phrases such as 'in my opinion' merely help to differentiate between the what we are presenting as our own views, and what we are presenting as fact.

I can see were there might be a problem when using "in my opinion" in relation to a belief that is independently verifiable. It does take some of the force away from an argument and makes debating more delicate than necessary. When a belief cannot be verified (or proven) independently then "in my opinion" is perfectly appropriate. Otherwise, I will agree that it makes debate more difficult at times...

This has been raised again of late - notably by Argonaut and Desert Resident - so I thought I might bump this discussion.

I can appreciate someone questioning a statement like "The Bush administration has the worst economic record since the Great Depression", presuming that it is a statement of some sort of datum which can be cited rather than pure opinion. I can definitely understand someone questioning a statement like "96% of gay men have had more than one hundred sexual partners", which certainly looks like more than mere opinion. But when someone makes a clearly hyperbolic statement such as "Bush has to be the worst head of state in the history of the known universe", I think it is disingenuous for other participants to react with ""How can you state something like that as fact?? Can you back that up - or is that just opinion?? How can you possibly be expected to be taken seriously?!?!?!?" - especially when such statements are peripheral to the argument itself.

If some here are going to be so literal-minded as to mistake a clearly subjective sentence like "The Bush administration is dangerous and evil" as a statement of demonstrable fact, I suppose we must start prefacing every sentence with "In my opinion..."

My (Argonaut) reply to him then was:
"That's not a lie! It was GW's opinion about what it was time to do. Can you state (with proof) what it was "time to" do? And even if GW had said "I will restore honor and dignity...", it still wouldn't be a "lie" because "honor" and "dignity" are subjective. If that's the "biggest lie" you have found, Karl Rove may sleep soundly tonight."


And my current reply:
Well, it would appear that Desert Resident and I are not the only "literally minded" folks on the Forum, since Wertz couldn't tell the difference between GW's opinion (which Wertz quoted), and a "lie". I know I could tell the difference, and the topic for debate was "Does GW lie?" Hardly seems "peripheral" to me.

In light of that, qualifying one's statements (which is the topic in this debate) might be a useful tool in debate after all? At least I believe that to be the case.

Edited to remove improperly cited quotation

Regarding the pursuit of statements peripheral to the discussion itself, well - need I comment?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Now, then, is anyone interested in discussing the difference between posting opinions and citing facts (and whether spelling out the distinction, even when it's apparent, is necessary) - without trying to score off-topic points based on willful misconstruction?

I often struggle with what I am committing to paper. (Or electronic memory in this case.)

Links are easy to cite in this medium... It is obvious that if I am quoting John Doe, I am not expressing my opinion, although I may be slanting John Does opinion by taking it out of context.



Statistics, poll results, etc. are obviously open to interpretation, but are not opinions.

By the time that I reach a conclusion, I may have convinced myself that my original opinion was wrong, and need to rewrite everything starting from my final sentence. (Despite other's opinions, I do keep an open mind.)

It might be obvious that what I conclude is an opinion, but if I am stating "IMO" or "In my opinion," it is not meant to be offensive. It is my way of saying "This is what I think at the present time."

There's a Gary Larson cartoon that shows a man in Hell being prodded by a grinning devil with a trident to choose one of two doors. On one door is written "Damned if you do," on the other, "Damned if you don't."

That's how it is with using qualifiers such as "I think" or "in my opinion." If you use them, you're weakening your argument. If you don't use them, you are presenting what you're saying as though it is a fact (which it might be), but inevitably, you'd better believe you're going to get a request for "sources."

I like to qualify my comments. It doesn't mean that I feel less strongly about them, but that in this vast universe of information there just might be something out there to refute what I see as irrefutable. Sometimes the only thing we can be sure of is how we feel about what is going on, especially in light of the fact that our sources may just as easily be dismissed by the person(s) requesting them.

While we are blessed with professionals and students in many diverse fields on this board, we also have people (like me) with a lot of life experience and some higher education, but mostly with a general interest in the subjects and a desire to make our opinions known.

Without such a mix, could this forum be as popular or effective? A computer can come up with unlimited raw data and tedious bibliographies, but it takes humans to interpret it into something thought-provoking and at times entertaining.

In my humble opinion and I do believe Wertz that you correctly addressed this very topic last year :



Have no fear, AD members, about posts on this forum becoming peppered with "IMO" and "IB"! Those few AD members being challenged about the credibility of their passionate rhetoric which IMO frequently crosses the line into slanderous accusations or at the very least parroting the "slime" (their words) rhetoric of Coulter and her ilk on the other side of the fence, will get back on track once their apparent "ruffled feathers" recover from the objections raised by those of us who value our membership in the AD forum that stresses civility as one of its foremost guidelines.