Jhaerlyn Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Thanks for the clarification. .... could you clarify what is debatable?
Abramul Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 Depends what you mean by debatable. For instance, a debate on evolution might not be against the rules, but the odds are good that some people will start arguing it from a religious standpoint, which is likely to result in a lock.
ResidentWeevil2077 Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 So I'd probably guess that debates regarding the "e"-word are out of the question, as there always the possibility of WWIII happening...
LHammonds Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 Evolution is not a topic that is automatically locked. If you present your debate on evolution in a way that creationism arguments can be brought against it, then you are asking for a lock. If you are debating something specific about Evolution that doesn't invite religious replies, then you are much more safe from the topic getting locked. Bad Topic: Should Evolution be the only topic taught in school Better Topic: Evolution and Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life (Fermi's paradox) Keep in mind that Evolution is a "hot topic" and closely related to creationism. If you have any doubt, then google "Evolution Debate" and see check the ratio of links including creationism to links that mention nothing about creationism in the debate. LHammonds
xenxander Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 Excellent topics of choice for evolution would be: Given “x” environment and “y” and “z” species, which is more likely to evolve into a more robust organism and survive. This is asking for a clear-cut opinion given a few variables and perhaps your own personal knowledge. So you see, evolution isn’t banned, but when it becomes a poo-flinging contest between two babbling monkeys, then yes it will be banned.
WITHTEETH Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Hmm i find this sad. I always believed that the expression of free ideas was important for the civilization of mankind. When we stop talking, we start fighting. Just because we attack an idea, doesn't mean we attack a person. Ideas should be shaken and picked apart. What if we never challenged slavery and women rights?
ninja_lord666 Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 See, the thing is that in such areas as religion and politics (mostly the former), people are very adamant and strike out at anyone who disagrees. A religious debate may start out just fine, but will eventually degrade into a flame war, and flame wars are not good.
WITHTEETH Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Then whoever is the flamer, looks bad might learn how to react next time. Live and learn. Not that its fixable. Have to respect the mod/site pwner!
batlham Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Then whoever is the flamer, looks bad might learn how to react next time. Live and learn. Not that its fixable. Have to respect the mod/site pwner!no..doesn't work that way. the flamer never learns what he is doing is bad. They are too ignorant to know what they are doing is wrong and narrow sighted. All the flamer does is get everyone upset and they start flaming as well.It never ends well, and people get banned. Unfortunately, there are many with poor social skills who always think they are right and have to jam their opinions down others throats. Sooo..to keep from banning a lot of people..the rule is made to protect those with poor social skills from their own stupidity. There are MANY other sites on the net that you can go debate such issues.
WITHTEETH Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Well people don't like to admit there wrong, and most likely if they do change their mind, i believe they do that later when they are by themselves and reflect. People have the capacity to learn. I don't see a reason to ban often. I can see a reason to close a thread once too many are playing in the sandbox.
Recommended Posts