• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debating politics at Debate Politics

Is it possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace
 
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace

Both sides of the aisle are equally full of ****, and they just have a slightly different stink.
 
What about the thread that starts off well enough and then evolves/devolves into two posters taking the thread in "I know you are, but what am I" direction for page after page?
 
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace

I don't think I've ever brought up the other side, I hate that. It's childish.
I usually try to stick on topic and often yell at people who don't.
I'm also not afraid to shoot the messenger on dubious sources, claims or stupid websites and youtube videos.
 
Trying to point out hypocrisy to people you don't know is.... challenging. You have to assume they have aligned with every straw-man you've made of them.

I think people want to actually debate news stories instead of actual people...

I've even been guilty of it before. Trying to point out hypocrisy, when you really have no idea they are guilty of it.... and they can easily hide behind that because they know you know you don't "really" know.
 
What about the thread that starts off well enough and then evolves/devolves into two posters taking the thread in "I know you are, but what am I" direction for page after page?
That's a separate issue, but yes! I usually unsubscribe from those threads.

In the interest of full honesty I cannot say that I never ever do that, but I do try to keep it down to 2 or 3 posts, then let it go. Some people do it page after page, and next thing you know you have 4 pages of just those two people going back and forth.
 
Last edited:
Trying to point out hypocrisy to people you don't know is.... challenging. You have to assume they have aligned with every straw-man you've made of them.

I think people want to actually debate news stories instead of actual people...


I've even been guilty of it before. Trying to point out hypocrisy, when you really have no idea they are guilty of it.... and they can easily hide behind that because they know you know you don't "really" know.
I think that's a really good point. I'd also like to add that the online environment is incredibly different than real life. Whenever I talk to someone about politics in person it almost never devolves into name calling. When you talk to someone in person you have to look another human being in the face, and that anger against the other side sort of diminishes. Online people are more extreme and set in their ways. It's more about winning an argument than having a conversation or debate. I do enjoy a lot of the economic debates that are on this forum. They tend to be more on topic, and more links are provided.
 
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace

There used to be a time here when discussing the topic without bringing up the other side was extremely normal. In fact, there was this one guy (that's right, I said "one guy") who was notable for doing the "but Clinton" routine and a mod had to get personally involved to tell him to cut it out.

The latter hasn't happened in a pretty long time. At this point, if I was a mod my position would be, "Sure, I'll stop people from constantly hijacking the threads, but I'm getting a damn paycheck for it, because a full time job equals full time pay."
 
I don't think I've ever brought up the other side, I hate that. It's childish.
I usually try to stick on topic and often yell at people who don't.
I'm also not afraid to shoot the messenger on dubious sources, claims or stupid websites and youtube videos.

I don't mind questioning sources as long as there's some thought or substance put into it. There are sources that I am extremely skeptical of, i.e. DailyKOS, alternet, etc., for example, but truth be told even they have accurate information at times. Their bias tends to be in what they don't say, what they intentionally leave out.

That being said, here at DP what I have no tolerance for is when people say something like, "Well there's your problem, you cited <insert source here>.", and add nothing more.
 
What about the thread that starts off well enough and then evolves/devolves into two posters taking the thread in "I know you are, but what am I" direction for page after page?

Yeah that's frustrating. After about the 3rd or 4th page of every thread the "discussion" just becomes people insulting each other.
 
I think that's a really good point. I'd also like to add that the online environment is incredibly different than real life. Whenever I talk to someone about politics in person it almost never devolves into name calling. When you talk to someone in person you have to look another human being in the face, and that anger against the other side sort of diminishes. Online people are more extreme and set in their ways. It's more about winning an argument than having a conversation or debate. I do enjoy a lot of the economic debates that are on this forum. They tend to be more on topic, and more links are provided.
I think that's precisely it, for some.
 
It's known as Whataboutism and was/is a favorite propaganda tool of the Soviets/Russians.

Maybe that's why Trumpers resort to it 99% of the time :2razz:
 
It's known as Whataboutism and was/is a favorite propaganda tool of the Soviets/Russians.

Maybe that's why Trumpers resort to it 99% of the time :2razz:

:lol: I coined it "Look, a squirrel-ism!", but yeah, same thing.

I'll have to remember that link. Thanks.
 
I don't mind questioning sources as long as there's some thought or substance put into it. There are sources that I am extremely skeptical of, i.e. DailyKOS, alternet, etc., for example, but truth be told even they have accurate information at times. Their bias tends to be in what they don't say, what they intentionally leave out.

That being said, here at DP what I have no tolerance for is when people say something like, "Well there's your problem, you cited <insert source here>.", and add nothing more.

I do that all the time with YouTube videos. Nobody on Youtube has "the truth," and they are often worse than the cable guys.
 
Perhaps against my better judgment, I'll put forward a few of my own posts as examples of at least not saying "yeah, but you guys also did X," or "what your guy did is worse," or etc. I do so because I'd appreciate feedback as to whether or not I really live up to my own standards:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...al-news-trump-impeachment.html#post1067226122

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...op-hiring-white-cis-men-8.html#post1067223438

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-investigation-w-978-a-38.html#post1067209663

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...9-good-luck-third-rewrite.html#post1067200456

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...rtisanship-post1067198670.html#post1067198670

It may be delusion on my part that these achieve the point.
 
There used to be a time here when discussing the topic without bringing up the other side was extremely normal. In fact, there was this one guy (that's right, I said "one guy") who was notable for doing the "but Clinton" routine and a mod had to get personally involved to tell him to cut it out.

The latter hasn't happened in a pretty long time. At this point, if I was a mod my position would be, "Sure, I'll stop people from constantly hijacking the threads, but I'm getting a damn paycheck for it, because a full time job equals full time pay."

I've been here since 2009 and I don't recall that ever being the case.
 
Perhaps against my better judgment, I'll put forward a few of my own posts as examples of at least not saying "yeah, but you guys also did X," or "what your guy did is worse," or etc. I do so because I'd appreciate feedback as to whether or not I really live up to my own standards:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...al-news-trump-impeachment.html#post1067226122

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...op-hiring-white-cis-men-8.html#post1067223438

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-investigation-w-978-a-38.html#post1067209663

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...9-good-luck-third-rewrite.html#post1067200456

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...rtisanship-post1067198670.html#post1067198670

It may be delusion on my part that these achieve the point.

I don't think it's never ever valid, but it's definitely overplayed. Especially when it's the only thing offered in rebuttal.
 
Debating politics at Debate Politics

In today's political climate, is it even possible for one side to defend their side without bringing up the other side?

If so, I'm not seeing it. Threads can start out straight forward enough (in their own partisan way, sure), but they all quickly turn to variations of, "You didn't say that about <insert other perceived pariah here>." Or, is tactic this confirmation that neither side has any defense?

If someone says, "Trump/Hillary/Obama did X.", I see it as a backhanded acknowledgment of the accusation when the defensive response is something like , "Oh yeah, well, Obama/Hillary/Trump did it, too." What the hell is that? You can't actually defend your person's actions?

:peace

Yes and no. You cannot really "defend" a position without at least implicit reference to the antithesis. But you can explain your position.
But science works otherwise. It tries to show that reality is different from present knowledge by disproving the accepted wisdom or presumption.
 
Feud mentality is never escaped. We went from fueding by killing each other, to a slightly more civilized version using politics to feud endlessly.
The lesson of feuds was never really learned.

But I think part of our media in this country took fostering controversy into mainstream, that's FOX news and all the entertainers who did similar (Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc.).
They can likely all be directly quoted saying that controversy sells, and they earn a living generating it. This controversy, is what drives the insane level of partisanship we see. And the public, eats it up. The second issue comes into play when all that controversy is fueld by basically lies...this is then an attack on a reasonable society...which is serious ****, ultimately worth dying for if it came to that. It's no joke to make a mockery of the truth and the law.

There is some on the left too, but its usally the likes of extremists inside another fringe group like PETA and youthful "rebels", rise up, etc. Given that they are a tiny minority, and not credible in terms of MSM ideas or communication or reasons for their behavior, they aren't anywhere close to as harmful.

Lastly, if you use reduction to absurdity, or attempt to show hypocrisy, you often use an example from the other side to illustrate it. Rather than taken as "see it IS wrong if you look at this example", we interpret it as "OH, so it's OK as long as both sides do it".
 
I don't think I've ever brought up the other side, I hate that. It's childish.
I usually try to stick on topic and often yell at people who don't.
I'm also not afraid to shoot the messenger on dubious sources, claims or stupid websites and youtube videos.

As a liberal, I agree that you do very well even when I disagree with you. I think the issue is twofold: partisanship and intellect.

Often, what appears to be partisanship is actually a person with a very low intellect who is incapable of understanding that attacking somebody isn't the same thing as defending their position. They also are extremely good at dismissing and not thinking about anything that contradicts their previously held convictions.

As for actual partisanship, I think that's something that's been around since before any of us were born. Many decades ago, Charles Lindbergh was on a soap box attacking Washington for wanting to enter the war with the "America comes first" mantra. Nothing ever doesn't change, but nothing changes much. And that just won't change. Ever. Period. You got it or you don't, nature or nurture or both.
 
To expand on the problem you've highlighted, it's almost impossible to have a good debate unless you find at least one of person in the thread you can civilly and honestly debate with while completing ignoring the assassins of decency.

Really the only way to "fix" debate here would be to have very specific and fair rules beyond "don't insult posters". It would also require a paid mod team which is obviously beyond scope so not really realistic. People just sidestep the current rules and be as awful as they can mostly without breaking them. They also do stuff like completely ignore what you're saying while saying the same thing you've addressed a dozen times while ignoring your counterpoint so it's just a competition of who keeps replying. I've lost that war 999/1000 times because it's just stupid.

This is why I tend to just skim through and read the first couple pages of each thread to get up to date on the news and what a few people think about it and don't bother posting too often, it seems mostly pointless. Also I don't have the patience or attitude to be decent for extended periods of time, lol.
 
Is arguing for equal protection/application of the law, using/citing precedent or pointing out obvious hypocrisy now considered to be "cheating" or "wrong"? The poll seems to imply that these (or similar) debate techniques are somehow less than honorable - is that not so?

Personally, I see no harm in the use of analogies that *gasp* might include "the other side". What poll option choice represents that idea?
 
Back
Top Bottom