Is political debate dead?

[Gunslinger08]

I generally try to be civil and thoughtful in political discussions and I see a few others doing the same. Then their input goes largely ignored. Instead, we get 20 replies to inflammatory bullshit with more inflammatory bullshit.

I see the same thing in real life. Politicians, talking heads, and the general public are so poorly informed and so stubborn that political debate turns into a back and forth of insults and hatred instead of constructive collaboration and compromise. Everyone seems to be so stuck in the role of the particular party that they favor and they can't even begin to feel empathy for other points of view, just because their candidates don't support it. Why has this happened? Have we become so bitterly partisan that anything suggested by the other side is automatically wrong?

I, of course, expect this to turn into a finger pointing blame game where each party claims the other one does it more often.

 

[lotus503]

Valid points, but you have to consider the commonality in personality types from both ends. Is it the political discourse that drives forums discussions and media coverage, or the need to endlessly bicker for entertainment?

Personally I am a bit of both, I am interested in genuine discourse but because not everyone is, I can sink down and get involved with the bickering.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is political debate dead?

Funny you should ask.

What is American Idol? Watch it live on TV this fall between Obama and Romney. Theirs is a hollow game of TV showmanship for entertainment. Best entertainer wins. As lotus503 has pointed out, we are not so far removed.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Why has this happened? Have we become so bitterly partisan that anything suggested by the other side is automatically wrong?

The more extreme your political position, the more passionate you'll likely be about discussing it, and the more likely you'll be to seek forums where you can discuss it. As such, there is a self-selection bias in online political discussion that is biased toward more extreme viewpoints, particularly in the quantity of discussion. In reality, I know very few people that have such extreme positions as what you'd find on a typical politics board.

As a corollary, as political discussion trend to more extreme (and consequently, more toxic) viewpoints, it reaches a point where people that are more moderate exit the discussion altogether, and the only remaining participants are the extremists. As an example, see the comments section of any CNN news story.

 

[sportage]

Something has changed. In my opinion the newly formed tea party seem terribily child like.
The republican tea party controlled house insists on pulling childish stunts that they know will go nowhere. But they keep doing it.

Holding Holder in contempt for example, means nothing and ends here with this childish stunt.
Boehner now says the house will have a vote in July to repeal the affordable healthcare act.
Again, a very childish reaction to their loss in the court.
They will vote, and it will go nowhere after that.
A child tossing a hissy fit tantrum, only with adults acting like little brats.
Meanwhile, the house does nothing for the good of the people.
Think of it as daycare. Little kids fighting all day long, collecting a paycheck, then sent home only to repeat the process all over again the next day. Pathetic.
Until they are all tossed out, this will go on and on and on.

Reminds me of the movie Carnage with Jodie Foster, where parents meet to discuss their kids behaving badly, and the parents end up acting worse than the kids.
And the media? Forget about them holding congress accountable. The media is just as bad. Just watching CNN and fox news fall all over themselves to be the first to report a breaking news story is pretty pathetic. They don't care if they get it right, just as long as they are the first. Pathetic.

 

[michal1980]

Something has changed. In my opinion the newly formed tea party seem terribily child like.
The republican tea party controlled house insists on pulling childish stunts that they know will go nowhere. But they keep doing it.

Holding Holder in contempt for example, means nothing and ends here with this childish stunt.
Boehner now says the house will have a vote in July to repeal the affordable healthcare act.
Again, a very childish reaction to their loss in the court.
They will vote, and it will go nowhere after that.
A child tossing a hissy fit tantrum, only with adults acting like little brats.
Meanwhile, the house does nothing for the good of the people.
Think of it as daycare. Little kids fighting all day long, collecting a paycheck, then sent home only to repeat the process all over again the next day. Pathetic.
Until they are all tossed out, this will go on and on and on.

Reminds me of the movie Carnage with Jodie Foster, where parents meet to discuss their kids behaving badly, and the parents end up acting worse than the kids.
And the media? Forget about them holding congress accountable. The media is just as bad. Just watching CNN and fox news fall all over themselves to be the first to report a breaking news story is pretty pathetic. They don't care if they get it right, just as long as they are the first. Pathetic.

See, just like the left, always blaming righty.

It couldn't be that holder actually did something right. It couldn't be that Obama forced his liberal laws down the throats of americans.

No its childish repbulicans, and those oh so mature democrats.

Patrick Gaspard@patrickgaspard


it's constitutional. Bitches.

Oh wait..

 

[Doppel]

I generally try to be civil and thoughtful in political discussions and I see a few others doing the same. Then their input goes largely ignored. Instead, we get 20 replies to inflammatory bullshit with more inflammatory bullshit.

I see the same thing in real life. Politicians, talking heads, and the general public are so poorly informed and so stubborn that political debate turns into a back and forth of insults and hatred instead of constructive collaboration and compromise. Everyone seems to be so stuck in the role of the particular party that they favor and they can't even begin to feel empathy for other points of view, just because their candidates don't support it. Why has this happened? Have we become so bitterly partisan that anything suggested by the other side is automatically wrong?

I, of course, expect this to turn into a finger pointing blame game where each party claims the other one does it more often.

Typical liberal bullsh*t.

joking ;D

 

[Carmen813]

This emoticon accurately depicts the highest levels of debate obtained on the internet. A few of us tried to start a serious debate forum, it went well for a while, but it failed to hit critical mass and slowly drifted away.

 

[manimal]

Typical liberal bullsh*t.

joking ;D

eheheh


Realistically political debate is not dead. Among educated civil people in face to face situations the likelihood of things ending up in a room full of strawmen and false equivalencies is rather unlikely.


What is likely in todays new media world is misinformation and opinion being misinterpreted to great effect by the ignorant and simple as fact....

 

[dank69]

I'll tell you what, go through this forum and find the first 100 logical fallacies you can. Then tally them up to see how many are committed by Republicans/Independents/Democrats/Libertarians. Then, once you have that data, you can tell me who is or isn't interested in actual debate. How's that sound?

 

[sao123]

Have we become so bitterly partisan that anything suggested by the other side is automatically wrong?

the short answer is: YES.

Our nation is sharply divided between those who believe in equality of outcome vs those who believe in eqality of opportunity.

 

[dank69]

I'll tell you what, go through this forum and find the first 100 logical fallacies you can. Then tally them up to see how many are committed by Republicans/Independents/Democrats/Libertarians. Then, once you have that data, you can tell me who is or isn't interested in actual debate. How's that sound?

Here's an example right here, see if you can spot the strawman:

the short answer is: YES.

Our nation is sharply divided between those who believe in equality of outcome vs those who believe in eqality of opportunity.

Mark it down for 1 libertarian.

 

[Carmen813]

the short answer is: YES.

Our nation is sharply divided between those who believe in equality of outcome vs those who believe in eqality of opportunity.

I'd disagree with that assessment. It's far more complex than this vs. that. Nonetheless, I agree that there is a sharp divide in American society.

 

[dank69]

I'd disagree with that assessment. It's far more complex than this vs. that. Nonetheless, I agree that there is a sharp divide in American society.

It's not just that it's more complex than that. It's a flat out misrepresentation of what he considers the other side.

Those who believe in equality of outcome

This is what he thinks liberals want. What most liberals actually want is merely to raise the bar of how low we allow our poorest citizens to sink. We don't want the poorest citizens starving in the streets like dogs and in his mind, that translates into 'give them everything he has worked so hard to earn.'

 

[michal1980]

It's not just that it's more complex than that. It's a flat out misrepresentation of what he considers the other side. This is what he thinks liberals want. What most liberals actually want is merely to raise the bar of how low we allow our poorest citizens to sink. We don't want the poorest citizens starving in the streets like dogs and in his mind, that translates into 'give them everything he has worked so hard to earn.'

Oh please:

Liberals give out:

Free Food
Free Housing
Free Health Care
Free Cell Phones.
+ more every year.

How much work do you expect your 'poor' to do, if they can get everything they need to live for free?

Edit,

Then the left is surprised that the 'poor' in this country don't want to do work that illegals do.

Why would they do the work?

 

[dank69]

Oh please:

Liberals give out:

Free Food
Free Housing
Free Health Care
Free Cell Phones.
+ more every year.

How much work do you expect your 'poor' to do, if they can get everything they need to live for free?

Edit,

Then the left is surprised that the 'poor' in this country don't want to do work that illegals do.

Why would they do the work?

The free cellphones that were made available under the Bush Administration? I was unaware that Bush was such a raging liberal. :hmm:

As for the other three (food/housing/healthcare), those are what's known as basic needs for survival. So sorry I don't want poor people dying in the streets. I know that makes me a monster in your eyes. I bet you're a 'Christian,' right?

 

[nehalem256]

the short answer is: YES.

Our nation is sharply divided between those who believe in equality of outcome vs those who believe in eqality of opportunity.

The reason debate is dead is because there are large differences in fundamental values.

You were not likely to get a lot of debate between a slave owner and an abolitionist.

 

[michal1980]

The free cellphones that were made available under the Bush Administration? I was unaware that Bush was such a raging liberal. :hmm:

As for the other three (food/housing/healthcare), those are what's known as basic needs for survival. So sorry I don't want poor people dying in the streets. I know that makes me a monster in your eyes. I bet you're a 'Christian,' right?

And I was against Bush when he did that.


So again, once you give that all away, what motivation do your poor have to work? None.

Lets see

Poor guy could

A) work in a field picking fruits/vegetables all day and get a paycheck. Which would then pay for his food,housing,etc.
or
B) sit around doing nothing all day, while having someone else pay for his food,housing,etc.

Liberalism has created that condition, where people wont work, because they have all they need for free.

 

[dank69]

The reason debate is dead is because there are large differences in fundamental values.

You were not likely to get a lot of debate between a slave owner and an abolitionist.

No, there really isn't. Take the evil mandate of the evil Obamacare for example. All it does is enforce 'personal responsibility,' one of the central tenets of the Republican Party, but because it was proposed by that fucking Kenyan fuck, well, you know the rest of that story.

 

[nehalem256]

No, there really isn't. Take the evil mandate of the evil Obamacare for example. All it does is enforce 'personal responsibility,' one of the central tenets of the Republican Party, but because it was proposed by that fucking Kenyan fuck, well, you know the rest of that story.

If it enforces "personal responsibility" why does it massively increase medicaid?

How is having other people pay for you health care "personal responsibility"?

 

[dank69]

And I was against Bush when he did that.


So again, once you give that all away, what motivation do your poor have to work? None.

Lets see

Poor guy could

A) work in a field picking fruits/vegetables all day and get a paycheck. Which would then pay for his food,housing,etc.
or
B) sit around doing nothing all day, while having someone else pay for his food,housing,etc.

Liberalism has created that condition, where people wont work, because they have all they need for free.

The point kiddo, is that you claimed 'liberals' give away free cell phones, so unless you can show why you think Bush was a 'liberal,' your statement was false and you don't even understand who your opposition is, let alone what they want or believe.

 

[dank69]

If it enforces "personal responsibility" why does it massively increase medicaid?

How is having other people pay for you health care "personal responsibility"?

Mandate. The mandate part is what enforces 'personal responsibility,' and let's not forget that the GOP has spent the last 2+ years telling you that the mandate is the main thing wrong with the bill. The mandate is what makes people pay for their own insurance/health care instead of making other people foot their bill. Everyone knows this.

 

[michal1980]

The point kiddo, is that you claimed 'liberals' give away free cell phones, so unless you can show why you think Bush was a 'liberal,' your statement was false and you don't even understand who your opposition is, let alone what they want or believe.

It was a liberal idea.

I know my opposition. I know what they believe, you have reenforced those beliefs.


Liberals want people on the government handout train.

 

[nehalem256]

The free cellphones that were made available under the Bush Administration? I was unaware that Bush was such a raging liberal. :hmm:

Because stick an R next to their name makes them a conservative?

The Bush administration also initiated the largest expansion of Medicare in 35 years. Since when is expanding government health care conservative?

 

[nehalem256]

And Dank I do not know why you are only making this about Obamacare.

Lets look at something else the definition of marriage.

Conservative: A life-long relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children.

Liberal: A relationship between 2 people that lasts until one of them no longer feels like being married.

Why are we even using the same word to describe 2 entirely different concepts.