Debating Section

[NOX]

Hi Ed, Any chance of a question based debating section, where those of us who like a 'polite row' can play together in war and peace without having to encroach on the rest of the site where people seem to be getting increasing touchy if you disagree with their viewpoint with any seriousness. I know 'news' somewhat covers this but it tends to get slangy and off the wall sometimes, whereas I think a proper debating section would probably simply appeal to people who, granted, do want to shout their mouths off but in a more structured way.
Ta muchly ;-)

[AB Editor]

We tend to consider News and Soc & Cult to be "debate" areas of the site currently, would your debate starting question not fit with either of those themes? Or are they too restrictive?

I understand your desire for somewhere where questions could be asked where both parties understand a debate is going to happen however. one to consider.

[sandyRoe]

'Wigs on the green' might be a good name for such a room

[naomi24]

I can't see how a separate section would be any different to what we already have. How could you ensure that the 'touchy' people you talk about wouldn't add their two-pennyworth there too?

[ummmm]

They would.

[Khandro]

NOX; It might be helpful if you could give a/some example/s of the type of subject/s you have in mind.

[factor-fiction]

I think NOX means a section where one could make posts without fear of them being removed because others may be offended by the views expressed. I assume she doesn't mean going further and allowing posters to abuse each other.

[ummmm]

Nox is a he :-)

[factor-fiction]

Sorry NOX- but I sense you are probably not offended by such things.

[douglas9401]

Oooo! Use the force, Factor. :)

[Khandro]

//How could you ensure that the 'touchy' people you talk about wouldn't add their two-pennyworth there too?//
You can't, but for example, I suspect many avoid coming on 'Religion and Spirituality' to discuss comparative religion and a range of theological issues because of the aggressive and insulting treatment they get from the resident atheists. As I have said previously, when I go to the 'Law section' I find people discussing law, it is not populated by anarchists. Ditto 'Motoring' is not full of people telling motorists how they should be walking.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //I suspect many avoid coming on 'Religion and Spirituality' to discuss comparative religion and a range of theological issues because of the aggressive and insulting treatment they get from the resident atheists. As I have said previously, when I go to the 'Law section' I find people discussing law, it is not populated by anarchists. //

And there we were having a nice civilised discussion about a potential new section for AB. A prime example of what I think Nox may be talking about - and as I said, the sort of response that would be impossible to keep out.

[AB Editor]

"I suspect many avoid coming on 'Religion and Spirituality' to discuss comparative religion and a range of theological issues because of the aggressive and insulting treatment they get from the resident atheists."

Not to get into this again, but you do you think that you post questions designed for "discuss[on of] comparative religion and a range of theological issues"?

[boxtops]

I don't see the need for a separate section for debating, we debate well enough in the sections we already have.

What I would like to see is a "Personal Chat" topic, where people who are posting 1:1 (or a few:1) could converse. Just lately I have noticed that some threads digress into personal conversations very frequently (it looks as if it's people who know each other) but it's distracting from the main topics if others aren't part of those conversations (I guess this is mostly in Chatterbank, but not always). What do others think?

[ummmm]

I agree 100% Boxy.

[NOX]

Thanks for the replies so far. Well my main thought is not so much that you could keep the 'touchy-feely easily offended if not agreed with' type out of the debating section- they would undoubtedly chirp up as people have a right to do, and that's fine, but that it would be clear (because it's a debating section) that they would be vigorously opposed by someone and that if they didn't like that then clearly they were in the wrong section (or didn't own a dictionary to realise what ' debate' meant).
I think it's vital that things don't descend into a simple slanging match, which as people get hyper defensive are prone to do site wide, as people feel they 'own' their questions and only want certain agreeable answers, whereas a debate is by definition an argument- so to post there really wouldn't give them much wiggle room to be offended.

[emmie]

who is to say who is touchy feely, surely we can all be, it depends on the topic, or perhaps the wording of some questions and responses.

[ummmm]

Ohhhh there are definitely some very easily offended touchy feely people.

[boxtops]

Oh yes, and some quick to jump to the defensive, when no offence was intended, only a frank response.

[emmie]

that surely is human nature.

[ummmm]

Some people are just too sensitive for the internet.