Did not think so Lola...I think places hold "shouts and anger" so endevour to create a home with good vibes..

I enjoyed participating in our debating club at our high school. I too think it would be a shame if we aren’t able to discuss politics without getting hot headed about it. If we handle our discussions as a debate, it may work out. There are a few rules we would have to follow:

1. Limited space to state your opinion. Lets’ say; not more then 200 words.
2. In your debate, concentrate on a rebuttal, and back it up with facts. Act as if we were lawyers ( with the exception of Lola, she all ready is ).
3. Okay:There is the affirmative side and the negative side.
For example; those pro Obama. Affirmative must prove the resolution,
Negative: those against Obama. Negative rebut it and back it up with facts.
Objective:
These roles are reversed if the Negative introduces a Counterplan (in which case, the Negative assumes the burden of proof).

Rebuttal: Attacking the other team's arguments and evidence and defending your own, characterizes good debating.

Clear organization is vital to a successful debating speech.
A debater who convinces you has debated well; a debater who does not, has not.
Anyone have any other suggestions? If we follow these rules, I think it could be not only fun but also enlightening.

And, a good debate does not rely on the straw man argument.

Anne, it's where B does not refute A's original position because B argues instead with a substitution of A's original position. Within serious religious and political debates, it is often frowned upon because it veers from the scholastic method.

Didn't know for a long time that on the computer, capital letters meant shouting??? Who made up such a weird rule anyway? I use capital letters to emphasize something when necessary and there is no shouting being done by me. I get enough of that right here in my own home from as/h//e. He thinks it makes me listen to what he has to say and gripe about. Hah!! I tuned him out long ago and my silence drives him insane.

It is helpful to follow classic rules for rhetoric and debate. The major kinks in this in the 21st century when presenting 'evidence' or citing a source are:

1) Longevity of the evidence from the Internet- which does lead to literal copying and text of longish articles/passages from the internet. Not just the URL, 'cause the internet resource could disappear or be reorganized by the Internet site publisher.

2) Understanding the credibility/authenticity/reliability of the information source itself. Huge debate amongst educators (who must deal with student plagariasm), librarians (they see users relying on wikipedia citations for their essays. Can you imagine a judge writing a court case that cites a fly-by-night article? Each year gets more challenging to teach people how to assess information sources and author's credentials properly as we become more flooded with personal Internet blogs, self-published articles vs. articles pre-screened by editors, etc.) Sample article from Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educati...ternet_Age.aspx

'Course our chats are not academic discussions. But to help one another, it helps to reference Internet information source..that will not disappear off the Internet in 2 years and preferably published by an organization that has longevity.

Don't know if this helps. But we do have many other topics to chat up also.

A group of us from work was having lunch...a new individual came into our organization and he started talking about how he hunted and killed animals for their fur. I was appauled and defended animals rights...we did get into a heated discussion and it got so heated that at one point a lady popped up and said, "why don't we discuss something less contriversial like Politics or Religion." I think the norm is that some people DO get into passionate discussions about these two topics and some often end up in an argument. I have a friend who is a Doctor of Chemistry and does not believe in any religion or God. He and I are dear friends but there's no way I talk about religion...he has his belief and I have mine and therefore we do not go there.

Unless you like to argue, why choose controversial topics? I guess it depends on the people. It is a way to learn if people don't get too heated.

I was at a cousin's lunch on Saturday. A new member to the family said he liked living in MD, but didn't like our politics and started to share why. Someone kinds very quickly cut him off.

This lucheon was planned so we could all see one antoher at times other than funerals. Mom was from a family of nine so I have lots of cousins.

I agree with you, Chatty. As one person said recently, "I can always go on other boards to make my opinion known." Nowadays there are lots of boards where people will agree with whatever your opinion happens to be on any given topic.

Opinions, subjective by their very nature, can get quite "base" when emotions run hot and maturity disappears.

I agree with Dotsie's decision to shut down a suddenly-not-so-polite discussion topic. She is the owner of this board, and it was her call to make. I do not question it.

On October 15th in our Announcement section, Dotsie said, ".....I am also asking that politics not be discussed in the Current Event forum, nor other forums where this type of heated debate can take place. Prior to the political forum, we had a very rare feeling of tension. Since, it's happened often enough that I've now had to say - enough. Onward to focus on the other 60 forums with grace."

Moving onward with grace to other topics is what Dotsie asked us to do. Are we up for that?