I wonder if it isn't time to consider a new Forum called "Seti Debating Society" ?

Firstly, it isn't supposed to be "fun" to post in the Politics Forum, if that is what people want then they should use the Cafe, which is set up for amusement and banter. The Politics Forum is there for people to raise issues that are, or perhaps should be, of National or International importance, or concern. Or maybe to inform others of a particular injustice that they may not be aware of.

It is not the Old Bailey, nor is it a court of law, but regularly people are treated as if they are giving evidence under oath in the dock, and being cross examined by a Barrister in front of a Jury. Having peoples posts dissected line by line and each word challenged, with a demand for proof, is not conducive to a useful exchange of views.

I dislike the word Troll, but there are some people that tend at times to give the impression, that they are more interested in honing their skills in cut & thrust debate, rather than the subject matter at hand.

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the Cambridge Union Society CUS and have "That this House believes ..." etc etc then people can speak for or against the motion. It would certainly take the heat out of the Politics Forum, which is fraught enough already.

I rest my case M'lud.

If Politics is to be serious, rather than "fun", then shouldn't it be more than the expression of opinion? After all, the subjects that Politics deals with have impacts on people's lives. Surely dissecting views to establish their basis helps establish whether those views are deserving of further consideration.

If you want pages that are free for the unchallenged expression of opinion, perhaps we should be asking for Opinion only pages. As it is, the Politics pages are labeled "Discussion of Political Topics", which I feel gives those who post to it the freedom to request substantiation of statements that are presented as facts. If this substantiation is lacking, what is wrong with acknowledging that fact before moving on?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I agree with Bobby. Even if we had a "fun" debate forum, people would still want to verify the veracity of the statements being made before considering the logic as factual. This is a natural part of the debate process, whether the topics are politics or science or philosophy.

I'd say that the Politics forum would fit the need "fun" and political debates.

I wounder if this thread should have been titled " Seti's Intellectuals Debating Society". The thread would then receive a better understanding of it's motives by all who visit or post to it. This way poor ol' Bob would stop getting "Troll bashed" by us and hence be appreciated more for that intellectual approach he has towards subject matters.

I hate that the term "troll" gets tossed around as much as it does. I strongly believe that most people here really couldn't identify a real troll from someone who has a legitimate view.

I hate that the term "troll" gets tossed around as much as it does. I strongly believe that most people here really couldn't identify a real troll from someone who has a legitimate view.

There you go Ozz, the first subject for this new thread to debate, "Trolling" and what is and what is not "Trolling".

..... that most people here really couldn't identify a real troll .....

I can. They're small ugly little critters that live under bridges :-)

..... that most people here really couldn't identify a real troll .....

I can. They're small ugly little critters that live under bridges :-)

LOL Well there you have it. At least one person can properly identify a troll. :-)

I thought they were large, ate babies and lived under bridges

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

From the OP I don't believe this thread is intended primarily as a discussion of trolls and trolling. While the OP does mention the word, another could have been chosen in its place, so it's probably an extraneous detail. Let's not forget that the posts of Trolls can be characterized as "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic". Can we get this back on-topic and talk about whether a Debating Society forum is needed? I hope I've made my position clear, and provided reasons for that position. I'd be more opposed to a "Seti's Intellectuals Debating Society" forum, as that would appear to be elitist.

On the matter of "fun", which does seem to be part of the OP's formulation, we should not forget that the moderators have, in the past, permitted several threads with subjects starting "Fun with" on the Politics forum. I think this suggests that there is no general prohibition to having "fun" while posting to a Politics thread, provided it is on topic, and the post is not designed to inflame.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'd be more opposed to a "Seti's Intellectuals Debating Society" forum, as that would appear to be elitist.

Bob, Yes in most ways, hopefully, it would be viewed as elitist. The sole purpose then to be able to witness the intellectual mind at work in a forum where it would be most appreciated. I'm sure that there's quite a few Seti members who have superior intellectual abilities that show through in debate, can there not be a specific forum for us all to witness this in.

Why have a seperate forum? Why not just do what these threads have done....

TLPTPW, Seti Milestones... when the thread gets too big, just lock & start the next thread.

All Chris has to do is to remove the ? & put 1 if he so wishes & take it from there.

---

Why have a seperate forum? Why not just do what these threads have done....

TLPTPW, Seti Milestones... when the thread gets too big, just lock & start the next thread.

All Chris has to do is to remove the ? & put 1 if he so wishes & take it from there.

Sirius, the "?" could be replaced by the current topic up for debate. But also posters need be made aware that this thread is the place to debate and not to debauch others postees.

Quite true but then like the Milestones threads, the rules are displayed on the very 1st post.

---

I'd be more opposed to a "Seti's Intellectuals Debating Society" forum, as that would appear to be elitist.

Bob, Yes in most ways, hopefully, it would be viewed as elitist. The sole purpose then to be able to witness the intellectual mind at work in a forum where it would be most appreciated. I'm sure that there's quite a few Seti members who have superior intellectual abilities that show through in debate, can there not be a specific forum for us all to witness this in.

Mick, what would be the criteria by which to decide who could participate in such threads? If it's a self selecting group, how is that distinct from the group that currently post to the Seti@Home fora?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Agreed....reason...Too corrupt & useless..& toothless.

---

Agreed....reason...Too corrupt & useless..& toothless.

Looks like I'll be getting the beers then.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Looks like I'll be getting the beers then.

I'll have a half please Bob....

Criteria...self selecting Bob, so if you think you've got what it takes then join the debate. Hence if you feel the need to throw in a bit of "Troll speak" then you know your loosing on the intellectual front so time to get out before you make an ass of yourself....something on these lines anyway.

Chris S wrote:

The first person to say "Why, because you sez so?" buys the beers.

I thought I'd go straight to the punchline, Sirius B's post seemed to so obviously beg the question. Is asking that question "Troll speak", if so I'm surprised, as it's been asked on these fora for years without moderation.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Here's a topic that really does deserve intellectual debate....

Would Europe, including the British Isles be in the crippling state they are today if Winston Churchill refused to be Prime Minister & if no, just what would have America done then?

Churchill, Chance & the Black Dog

---

Chris S wrote:

The first person to say "Why, because you sez so?" buys the beers.

I thought I'd go straight to the punchline, Sirius B's post seemed to so obviously beg the question. Is asking that question "Troll speak", if so I'm surprised, as it's been asked on these fora for years without moderation.

"Troll speak" a new term to mean anyone saying anything derisory about another poster or their method of debate. Yes, Sirius was "Trolling" the UN so "Trolling" the subject of this new debate here is quite acceptable as this was not directed, by him, towards any one or more debaters here.

Would Europe, including the British Isles be in the crippling state they are today if Winston Churchill refused to be Prime Minister & if no, just what would have America done then?

The UK would most probably still have some of it's empire and many if not all commonwealth countries would not have been offered the opportunity to emigrate here. The reason being that without Winston I do wounder would we have pursued
the war any further after Dunkirk. Without continuation of this war we would not have felt obliged to offer the commonwealth citizens immigration status for their efforts in supporting our fight against Germany. I could be wrong for we are on a learning curve with this topic of debate.