The perception of anti-Black bias by this site

fwsweet · **Posted:** Sat 21 Apr 2007 16:33

The perception of anti-Black bias by this site

This is a request for member comments: How can we reduce the perception of anti-Black bias by this site?

===

This site seems to be stricter with posters who espouse Black activism than with those who lean towards subtle anti-Black rhetoric. This is not as it should be. We should be even-handed either in suppressing political advocacy or in allowing it. We should not appear to lean either way. The problem is not new and we have instituted rules to address it, such as the recently implemented policy of splitting changes-of-subject to new threads. Nevertheless, the problem continues.

Part of the problem may be that African-American activists are less accustomed to mature debate. As has been noted by many observers, African-American political and academic leadership tends to portray dissent by African Americans as "racial" treason. And so, many who would otherwise be interested in the subject refrain from participating for fear of being labeled. This abandons the field to zealots who violate the rules more often and so attract more punishment. At least, this seems to be the consensus among those who have tried to discuss U.S. racialism on other online forums.

But part of the problem may also be the four-step trajectory that debates over morality follow on this site. First, someone posts that a specific act committed by a specific individual was reprehensible. Second, readers perceive that the accused person belongs to a dichotomous group (either Black versus non-Black, or liberal versus conservative). Third, someone of the same group as the accused posts that, "you guys do even worse things." Finally, the discussion degenerates into a fight between the two dichotomous groups and the morality of the original act is forgotten. The point is that we do not get complaints when such fights degenerate into liberals versus conservatives. But we do get emails complaining that the site is biased against Blacks whenever such fights degenerate into Whites versus Blacks.

In an effort to stop that four-step trajectory (which leads to perceived anti-Black bias), I am proposing a site rules change to outlaw the tu quoque fallacy. To see the details of, and to comment on this proposed rules change, see the thread Should the tu quoque fallacy be outlawed in this "Site Management" forum.

Still, there should be other things that we can do as well.

===

How can we reduce the perception of anti-Black bias by this site?

Do you have any suggestion on this (unrelated to outlawing tu quoque)? Please comment below if you have any other ideas on how to stop the four-step trajectory described above, or if you have any other suggestion for reducing the perception of anti-Black bias by this site.

Powell · **Joined:** Sat 27 Nov 2004 22:05 **Posts:** 2548

Frank:

Quote:

Part of the problem may be that African-American activists are less accustomed to mature debate.

The fact is that ANY criticism of "black" views, persons or society will be labeled "racist" by many blacks. Like Neo-Confederates, only the complete acceptance of their fantasies as social and historical fact will satisfy them. If you don't accept those fantasies, you are automatically "biased."

All too often our American media allow blacks to say ridiculous things without being challenged.

LMartin · **Posted:** Sun 22 Apr 2007 18:23

fwsweet wrote:

The perception of anti-Black bias by this site

This is a request for member comments: How can we reduce the perception of anti-Black bias by this site?

===

This site seems to be stricter with posters who espouse Black activism than with those who lean towards subtle anti-Black rhetoric. This is not as it should be. We should be even-handed either in suppressing political advocacy or in allowing it. We should not appear to lean either way. The problem is not new and we have instituted rules to address it, such as the recently implemented policy of splitting changes-of-subject to new threads. Nevertheless, the problem continues.
…
But part of the problem may also be the four-step trajectory that debates over morality follow on this site. First, someone posts that a specific act committed by a specific individual was reprehensible. Second, readers perceive that the accused person belongs to a dichotomous group (either Black versus non-Black, or liberal versus conservative). Third, someone of the same group as the accused posts that, "you guys do even worse things." Finally, the discussion degenerates into a fight between the two dichotomous groups and the morality of the original act is forgotten. The point is that we do not get complaints when such fights degenerate into liberals versus conservatives. But we do get emails complaining that the site is biased against Blacks whenever such fights degenerate into Whites versus Blacks.

Do we know if the “analogy” argument is favored by either side, pro-black or pro-multiracial? What if the use of analogy is recognized for what it is – an assertion of precedent, and a demand that the argument be broadened? So that the other side would simply need to show how the two cases are unrelated, so precedent does not hold and the argument cannot be broadened. The point being to be even-handed with this kind of argument.

If the first poster is concerned only with the morality of the behavior, being presented with any instance of that behavior should not faze him or her, but simply let the other poster know that all instances of the behavior is under question, so listing multiple instances of the behavior in question does not add anything to the argument. Of course, a poster can say that he or she is only concerned with a narrow discussion and outcome, but I would question the value of that.

In this example, Melani23 makes a bald statement without any reasoning behind it:-

http://backintyme.com/ODR/about3206.html

fwsweet wrote:

Melani23 wrote:

[Talking about the morality of condoning homosexuality.] Now, what 'rights' exactly does a person have, to tell anyone, that their unconscionable acts are all good and proper and that all should just accept 'said actions'? NONE. If one cannot legislate 'morality', one cannot also legislate 'immorality' either.

triguy wrote wrote:

How many Americans only a few years ago were similarly offended interracial marriage (and the resulting sex). It was only 40 years ago that interracial marriage was illegal in many parts of the U.S. because many white people in control felt that interracial marriage was unconscionable.

Notice that, rather than addressing whether or not condoning homosexuality is moral, Triguy switches to talking about pre-1967 U.S. laws and current U.S. attitudes towards intermarriage.

Triguy responds with an analogy that claims precedent and relatedness. Melani23 simply needs to go back and broaden her argument (actually, produce one for the first time), and show how the two cases are unrelated, and so precedent is invalid.

In the example fwsweet chose (actually how it is presented), it seems to give greater credence to Mlani23’s bald statement: triguy appears to not be arguing “correctly” by using “analogy.” IMO, triguy presented a more reasoned position.

The law is all about morality. The important line of demarcation, which triguy brings up, is what morality the law (government) decides to condone and what it does not. Interracial marriage is related to homosexually because both were legally punishable in many instances. One became legal and one did not. To ask why is the appropriate line of reasoning. Melani23 had the option of responding that she is using the Bible as reference, not U.S. legal history, thus invalidating triguy’s response. How many would have found that argument credible is anyone’s guess.

Another example. I say my identity is multiracial, not black. Someone says, since among racists your identity is black, that should be your true identity. That is a valid argument. I simply have to produce an argument that takes the opinion of racists in mind. One way of doing that would be to argue from the constitution (which I do), which applies to racists and non-racists alike. But because I make a bald statement that a multiracial identity is right, does not mean I cannot be challenged with an analogy or an “outside” valuation – that of racists, for example.

In conclusion, I do not see analogy as a point of contention, or a “low blow”, but simply a claim of relatedness and a demand to broaden the argument. The opposing side needs to be able to incorporate it in its reasoning.

Of course, it could also be that complaining is more readily resorted to by the pro-black side, for whatever reason

fwsweet · **Posted:** Sun 22 Apr 2007 19:18

LMartin wrote:

Triguy responds with an analogy that claims precedent and relatedness. Melani23 simply needs to go back and broaden her argument (actually, produce one for the first time), and show how the two cases are unrelated, and so precedent is invalid. In the example fwsweet chose (actually how it is presented), it seems to give greater credence to Mlani23’s bald statement: triguy appears to not be arguing “correctly” by using “analogy.” IMO, triguy presented a more reasoned position.

Precisely. In the other thread, I wanted to discuss the pros and cons of outlawing tu quoque. And in that specific example, saying that Triguy should stick to the morality of condoning homosexuality cripples his argument. In the example, as I understand it, Melani23 argued as if there were consensus on absolute morality over historical time and culture. Triguy wanted to show that public morality often changes over time. It would be virtually impossible for Triguy argue thus if a moderator jumped in to rule that he had to stick to homosexuality. Clearly we need to tweak the proposed no-tu quoque rule to avoid such stifling of arguments.

Perhaps a step back to re-examining the problem is in order:

1. I get emails complaining that the site is biased against Blacks.

2. The complaints are usually because some debate degenerated to Whites versus Blacks. (Oddly, no one complains when debates degenerate to Conservatives versus Liberals, which happens more often.)

3. Debates that degenerate to Whites versus Blacks follow a common spiral pattern: Someone criticizes an act by a Black (White) celebrity, this is answered with criticism of David Duke (Al Sharpton), this is followed by a reference to Black crime (Jim Crow), and so forth.

Forgetting the proposal to outlaw tu quoque for a moment (we can discuss it in its own thread). Is there anything that the moderators can do to nip the spiral pattern in the bud when it starts? That is, anything that moderators can do that would not interfere with non-spiraling debate?

LMartin · **Posted:** Sun 22 Apr 2007 22:48

fwsweet wrote:

Perhaps a step back to re-examining the problem is in order:

1. I get emails complaining that the site is biased against Blacks.

2. The complaints are usually because some debate degenerated to Whites versus Blacks. (Oddly, no one complains when debates degenerate to Conservatives versus Liberals, which happens more often.)

3. Debates that degenerate to Whites versus Blacks follow a common spiral pattern: Someone criticizes an act by a Black (White) celebrity, this is answered with criticism of David Duke (Al Sharpton), this is followed by a reference to Black crime (Jim Crow), and so forth.

Forgetting the proposal to outlaw tu quoque for a moment (we can discuss it in its own thread). Is there anything that the moderators can do to nip the spiral pattern in the bud when it starts? That is, anything that moderators can do that would not interfere with non-spiraling debate?

What I suggested was this:

LMartin wrote:

What if the use of analogy is recognized for what it is – an assertion of precedent, and a demand that the argument be broadened? So that the other side would simply need to show how the two cases are unrelated, so precedent does not hold and the argument cannot be broadened. The point being to be even-handed with this kind of argument.

If the first poster is concerned only with the morality of the behavior, being presented with any instance of that behavior should not faze him or her, but simply let the other poster know that all instances of the behavior is under question, so listing multiple instances of the behavior in question does not add anything to the argument. Of course, a poster can say that he or she is only concerned with a narrow discussion and outcome, but I would question the value of that.

An example. A common pro-ODR argument is to cite multiracial friendly societies – Latin America, the British West Indies, Haiti, South Africa – as a reason to not allow a multiracial identity in the United States because of institutionalized racism. Someone can counter by demanding that the Sudan as a multiracial society that is anti-black in the same way these other societies are implied to be, be included as an example of why a multiracial identity should not be allowed in the U.S. In other words, a cataloging of all instances of a category in an argument should not derail or even change the argument. In fact, it helps the argument along by removing arbitrary biases, in this case exemption for Arab societies. Of course, if the first position refuses to include that instance (of Sudan), the other position wins the argument because the first is unwilling to let go of his or her bias. The fault in this case should not be with the person who brings another instance of the subject, but the person who refuses to incorporate it.

What I am saying is that Moderators should be aware of when a poster is just increasing the catalog of instances of the subject of the argument. If an argument about morality is derailed by an example that brings in racial difference, its not an argument about morality.

Cataloging instances of the subject under debate is fine. I think the argument becomes bottlenecked there because it is inherently harder to go beyond this. It takes much greater effort. Period. You actually have to think about relationships between things, where before you’re just grouping similar things.

LMartin · **Posted:** Mon 23 Apr 2007 18:11

I guess my suggestion is for greater transparency. I’m hesitant about restricting any kind of argument – it verges on censorship, I think.

Last night I watched 60 Minutes. The last segment was about rap music’s theme of “don’t snitch.” It made me remember this discussion because a rapper argued that he was just stringing words together – creating poetry -– but it was whites – as in Smith and Wesson – who were producing the guns. Many people might say that that is not a valid line of reasoning. I disagree. All the rapper was saying was that he should be treated equally as other creators of products that are potentially harmful. He was simply rejecting a double standard. Note that businesses like the cigarette industry and weapons manufacturers are never told to cease production, but simply to restrict distribution. In all fairness, rap musicians should equally be required to have more accurate labeling, not that they should become more moral. We do not ask that of other manufacturers.

(PS: I’m not a listener of rap music, or a gun enthusiast!)

fwsweet · **Posted:** Tue 24 Apr 2007 16:27

Well, some rules are necessary, of course, but I agree with your main point.

How about this. Maya often deals with incipient spirals by identifying generalizations. If someone says, "my Italian relatives like pasta," she lets it go. But if someone says, "all Italians like pasta," she often jumps in.

What if other moderators used her approach? What if the moderators simply discourage White/Black generalizations? In other words, (1) "Imus is a lout," produces response (2) "Sharpton is a lout," which produces (3) "More Whites than Blacks are louts," at which point the moderator jumps in. The moderator's goal is not to debate the accuracy of statement 3. The goal is to stop the spiral by cutting it off at the first Black/White generalization. (I would not bother with conservative/liberal generalizations because I don't get letters complaining about liberal/conservative bias.)

LMartin · **Posted:** Tue 24 Apr 2007 18:00

fwsweet wrote:

Well, some rules are necessary, of course, but I agree with your main point.

How about this. Maya often deals with incipient spirals by identifying generalizations. If someone says, "my Italian relatives like pasta," she lets it go. But if someone says, "all Italians like pasta," she often jumps in.

What if other moderators used her approach? What if the moderators simply discourage White/Black generalizations? In other words, (1) "Imus is a lout," produces response (2) "Sharpton is a lout," which produces (3) "More Whites than Blacks are louts," at which point the moderator jumps in. The moderator's goal is not to debate the accuracy of statement 3. The goal is to stop the spiral by cutting it off at the first Black/White generalization. (I would not bother with conservative/liberal generalizations because I don't get letters complaining about liberal/conservative bias.)

I’m not against rules. My point spoke more to the fairness of rules. If the complaints are justified, then the rules are not fair. If the complaints are not justified, then its an appearance of unfairness. Hence I suggested greater transparency, rather than restricting a particular type of argument.

I thought the site as a whole already disallowed generalizations, so I don’t know how effective that would be.

I must admit that there were a few instances where I was surprised that some pro-black posters were suspended. It probably makes more sense to look at the reasons why. I have a feeling its those instances that cause the complaints. Of course, I’m not the one enforcing the rules, and I certainly don’t envy you, Frank, and the others who do.

fwsweet · **Posted:** Wed 25 Apr 2007 03:21

LMartin wrote:

I must admit that there were a few instances where I was surprised that some pro-black posters were suspended.

You should not be. If I believed that someone has joined this site in order to express pro-Black or pro-White sentiment, I would expel them on the spot. The purpose of this site is to discuss U.S. racialism, not to exacerbate hostility across the color line. Since I cannot be sure that that expressing pro-Black or pro-White sentiment was a member's goal, even when the evidence suggests it, I give them the benefit of the doubt and merely suspend them for longer and longer intervals.

ImBack · **Joined:** Wed 28 Jun 2006 03:10 **Posts:** 751

Powell wrote:

Frank:

Quote:

Part of the problem may be that African-American activists are less accustomed to mature debate.

The fact is that ANY criticism of "black" views, persons or society will be labeled "racist" by many blacks. Like Neo-Confederates, only the complete acceptance of their fantasies as social and historical fact will satisfy them. If you don't accept those fantasies, you are automatically "biased."

All too often our American media allow blacks to say ridiculous things without being challenged.

Powell is quite correct. Just look at Dragon Horses's slander of my character in the TheMulattoKid thread in this section of the site. Nothing but nearly total acceptance of their view points for many of these people, is good enough. Dissent is the same as racism.

Kid

fwsweet · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 17:55

Two recent experiences are changing my mind on this issue. The first is the recent dust-up between DH and TheMulattoKid. The second is a pro-Black pattern in the letters I get.

The recent dust-up between Dragon Horse and TheMullatoKid shows that I have misunderstood the issue. I had thought that it was a “Black versus White” thing (between self-identified Whites and self-identified Blacks). But the recent flame war that resulted in DH’s one-week suspension was not between the ideologies of Black and White. It was between Black and multiracialism. Indeed, Dragon Horse’s position seemed to be peculiarly hostile to TheMulattoKid’s aggressive in-your-face multiracialism precisely because TheMulattoKid is not White in the traditional “pure blood” sense. TheMulattoKid’s obvious disdain for anyone who can redefine themselves out of Blackness but fails to do so out of ethnic loyalty, enrages those who are committed to a Black identity. Apparently, it enrages to the point of irrationality.

Despite DH’s refusal to discuss them, I have continued to examine his implied rules changes (examined here).

* Should we have a rule against ignorance and bias? -- Of course not. If we did, no ignorant person would ever come to become informed, and the site’s main goal is to inform.

* Should we have rules against historical inaccuracy (rather than the softer current rule merely requiring sources when challenged)? -- Again, if we suspended anyone merely for being historically uninformed, we could never inform anyone.

* Should we have rules against blaming victims for their own oppression? -- This one seems reasonable and worth looking into. In the specific context of the DH-TheMulattoKid debate, however, the latter was talking about behavior in 2007 while DH answered about behavior a half-century ago. The very existence of Clarence Thomas. Colin Powell, Condoleza Rice, and a regiment of Black liberal politicians shows that nowadays your acceptance into White society (or not) depends on your attitude as well as on your skin tone. Unless we craft such a rule carefully, it becomes merely a rule that you can criticize anyone but Blacks.

* Should we have a rule that members must not advocate any personal self-identity? -- That DH could even imply such a thing shows irrational rage. Such a rule would terminate the “Issues for Biracial Americans” forum, which is where this entire website began.

* Should we have a rule forbidding political advocacy anywhere in this site? -- I would agree with this if the members wanted it. In this case, however, no one has been a more vocal political advocate than DH, so I suspect that his implication was to disallow anti-Black or pro-multiracialism political advocacy. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the site.

* Should we have a rule that multiracialism alone may not be advocated? -- Under no circumstance would I consider such a rule. It would terminate the “Issues for Biracial Americans” forum, which is where this entire website began.

* Should we have a rule allowing political advocacy but only if it does not verbally attack entire groups? -- I would agree with this if the members wanted it. In this particular case, however, no one has been more vigorous in attacking multiracialism than DH. (Why not consider yourself Black, since Blacks come in all colors? Why call yourself anything other than Black since this will not save the planet? Denying your Blackness is genetic self-hatred. – indeed it was this last accusation, repeated after warning that got DH suspended). Again, I suspect that DH was implying that we should forbid criticism of Blacks but allow criticism of other groups.

* Should we have a rule that it is okay to attack political parties but no other groups? -- This is a different degree of the prior suggestion. Its pros and cons are the same.

* Should we have a rule that it is okay to attack politically labeled groups (liberals, conservatives, nazis, NOI) but not ethnically labeled groups? -- This is a different degree of the prior two suggestions. Its pros and cons are the same.

This first experience has made me lean towards AD’s contention that there is something uniquely brittle about the ideology of Black ethnic identity. It is not that it reacts with rage to White racism. That makes sense. It is that it reacts with unthinking rage to multiracialism by English-speaking Americans with Black ancestry.

The second experience was our receiving accusatory letters for suspending DH. Within the past week we suspended Salsassin for two weeks and Garciaparra for an entire month, and yet no one accused us of being anti-Peruvian or anti-Mexican-American. We suspended DH for one lousy week and we got letters accusing us of being anti-Black.

In short, I am becoming reluctantly convinced that our very policy of allowing people to advocate multiracialism is seen as anti-Black. This means that nothing will satisfy those who see anti-Black bias here short of ending our hospitality to the ideology of multiracialism. And this will not happen. Multiracialism was where this site began.

And so, unless someone has something to add, I will no longer fret about the site being seen as anti-Black. We are what we are. Take it or leave it. Future accusatory letters will go into the bit-bucket unread. And I will personally land with both feet on the next person who opposes multiracialism on the grounds that it will not end racism or that it is genetic self-hatred.

As far as I am concerned, this thread is over.

LMartin · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 18:38

fwsweet wrote:

In short, I am becoming reluctantly convinced that our very policy of allowing people to advocate multiracialism is seen as anti-Black. This means that nothing will satisfy those who see anti-Black bias here short of ending our hospitality to the ideology of multiracialism. And this will not happen. Multiracialism was where this site began.

And so, unless someone has something to add, I will no longer fret about the site being seen as anti-Black. We are what we are. Take it or leave it. Future accusatory letters will go into the bit-bucket unread. And I will personally land with both feet on the next person who opposes multiracialism on the grounds that it will not end racism or that it is genetic self-hatred.

As far as I am concerned, this thread is over.

Frank,

I hope you will permit a last minute suggestion: that a distinction be observed between People and Things in statements that express negativity. One would not be allowed to reject, ridicule, or be dismissive of people. One could only reject, ridicule, or be dismissive of things.

Though one would not be allowed to express negativity towards people, one would still be allowed to be negative, but would have to rephrase it to refer to things. For example, one would not be allowed to say “I reject blacks.” One could say “I reject black identity” or “I reject for myself the stereotypes placed on blacks.” The latter two are things. The negative statement is less personal that way.

This would not put any constraints on a multiracial identity, even a political one. In fact, it enhances a multiracial identity, which (IMO) has never been a rejection of people.

I don’t know the effect this would have on discussions. Will they become duller, for example? Or too restricted?

Anyway, that's the suggestion.

fwsweet · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 18:56

LMartin wrote:

A distinction [should] be observed between People and Things in statements that express negativity. One would not be allowed to reject, ridicule, or be dismissive of people. One could only reject, ridicule, or be dismissive of things.

Works for me, although we will have to try it out to see if it restricts or dulls the threads. Let's do this. I ask the moderators to notice whether each instance of advocacy/opposition in the two flame-war forums (Maya's and Dean's) is about people or about ideology. If, in the judgment of the moderator, the advocacy/opposition is about people, they should issue a mild warning (we cannot actually suspend someone because it is not an official rule yet). If the advocacy/opposition is about idealogy, the moderator should let it pass (assuming that the other rules are followed). Let's see what happens.

ImBack · **Joined:** Wed 28 Jun 2006 03:10 **Posts:** 751

Quote:

And I will personally land with both feet on the next person who opposes multiracialism on the grounds that it will not end racism or that it is genetic self-hatred.

Logic is my shield, truth is my sword, and freedom are my boots. :wink:

Kid

fwsweet · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 19:04

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Logic is my shield, truth is my sword, and freedom are my boots.

And your agressive in-your-face multiracialism is what pisses others off. Ah, well.

So, tell me, are you already in our joint moderator form with mulatto.org or not? If not, we should add you. PM me or MixedMom if you do not know what I am talking about.

sagascend · **Joined:** Sat 17 Jun 2006 22:24 **Posts:** 2420

fwsweet wrote:

LMartin wrote:

A distinction [should] be observed between People and Things in statements that express negativity. One would not be allowed to reject, ridicule, or be dismissive of people. One could only reject, ridicule, or be dismissive of things.

Works for me, although we will have to try it out to see if it restricts or dulls the threads. Let's do this. I ask the moderators to notice whether each instance of advocacy/opposition in the two flame-war forums (Maya's and Dean's) is about people or about ideology. If, in the judgment of the moderator, the advocacy/opposition is about people, they should issue a mild warning (we cannot actually suspend someone because it is not an official rule yet). If the advocacy/opposition is about idealogy, the moderator should let it pass (assuming that the other rules are followed). Let's see what happens.

Personally I think only the most brittle and peevish posters could abide by this rule. But this also means that we can't complain about celebrities anymore, so what about the Popular Culture and Popular People fora? I'd be willing to lessen the entertainment value.

I have been thinking that perhaps it would be good to find or write some essays on argumentation, persuasion and rhetorical style. Our popular culture is currently so combatative and vicious when it comes to airing opposing views that I suspect many posters are just behaving like the people they see in the media and may be surprised at the censorship here. Maybe it would be more boring but it would be great to see people "step their game up" rhetorically speaking. It's harder to compose a structured argument and easy to flame-throw, name-call and have a temper tantrum when someone doesn't agree with you.

Perhaps even the advocates here can agree that the most verbally persuasive advocates for a cause are usually make sound arguments?

What do others think?

DucorpsToo · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 19:43

^^^^Neat idea Sagascend. Just like "beating the yellow light before it turns red", the ability of disagreeing without being disagreeable, is truly an art form. I'm curious as to how serious you'd wish for the debate format to be?.

As a preamble I'm only using the following as an example of a format; and I'm not trying to influence anyone's religious beliefs here on this board. Now that this little disclaimer is out of the way, I happen to belong to a board which caters to the "non-religious" folk. There happens to be a section entitled "The Arena" which is for "serious debate". Now the rules for debate within this particular forum are as follows:

Quote:

To propose a formal debate, the following is required:

1. General topic area (examples: Sexuality, Apologetics, Christology, Evolution, etc.).

2. Proposition. Must be a formal statement. Examples:

"The apostle Paul taught, in 1 Corinthians chapter seven, that divorced persons may marry."

"Creationism is supported by science."

"The Testimonium Flavium is historically valid."

NOTE 1: We are ExChristians, so a debate that presupposes that Christianity is factual is not appropriate. For instance, "Did Jesus' sacrifice bring salvation to all or just the elect?", would be a debate between believers, not between a believer and a non-believer, because it presumes that Christianity's claims are factual.

NOTE 2: Members of ExC.NET are former Christians, we are not "never been Christians". Please keep in mind this fact when debating here.

3. Debate parameters. These should follow basic debate rules, where the affirmative begins, the counter responds. Rounds of debate must be specified.

(example debate format)
FORMAT

Round One:
Proponent opens - 1500 word limit
Opponent refutes - 1500 word limit

Round Two:
Proponent refutes above - 1000 word limit
Opponent refutes above - 1000 word limit

Round Three:
Proponent cross-examines - 3 questions only.
Opponent answers - 250 words each question.

Round Four:
Opponent cross-examines - 3 questions only.
Proponent answers - 250 words each question.

Round Five:
Proponent concludes - 500 word limit
Opponent concludes - 500 word limit

Membership Q&A
Member questions - 3 questions to each participant. 1 question only per member. A total of 6 questions asked.

GUIDELINES

Word Count - The best way to make sure your word count is within the given limits is to use an application such as Microsoft Word. Paste your document into Word and click on 'properties' under the dropdown menu 'File'. There is a tab that gives statistics. One of those statistics is a word count. The moderator will not count greetings and other such comments at the beginning and end of the post in the word count.

Proposal - Give your proposal an accurate short title descriptive of the thesis you will propose. Clearly state the background of your argument, be specific. (Catholic, reformed protestant, atheist, mormon, etc…) RESEARCH your topic beforehand and present a complete argument that is clear and well thought out. Define any terms our members or your opponent may not be clear on. Your Proposal may not exceed 1500 words.

Counter Proposal - The opponents may present one counter proposal specific to the proponent problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the arguments presented by the proponent. State what the background of your counter argument is. Research your topic. Counter proposals should include a reasonable alternative. Define terms. Counter Proposal may not exceed 1500 words.

Rebuttal - Used to respond to the opposition’s lines of argument made in the proposal and counter proposal, and to extend arguments, clarify or introduce new evidence related to previous arguments. (New arguments in rebuttal are left to the discretion of the participants, but the participant should only advance new arguments if they have successfully addressed their opponent's arguments. The participant will risk their position if they fail to address their opponent and opt to "change the subject." In other words, new arguments are introduced at the debater’s own risk.) Rebuttals may not exceed 1000 words.

Cross Examination – Each participant will have an opportunity to ask the opposition 3 questions in cross-examination. Questions should be brief and specific and constructed as to not require an answer to exceed a couple paragraphs. Answers must deal directly with the questions. Answers may not exceed 250 words per question.

Conclusions - Demonstrate how you have established or refuted the thesis. Conclusions may not exceed 500 words.

Membership Q&A - Questions must be approved by the moderator/judge prior to them being answered. Post your questions after conclusions are complete. The Moderator will delete questions not chosen and mark selected questions to be answered as approved. 3 questions to each participant for a total of 6 questions will be approved.

**THERE WILL BE A 3 DAY LIMIT (MAX) BETWEEN RESPONSES**.

RULES

Evidence- ONLY use evidence that is accurate and thoroughly referenced in your presentation. Evidence will be accurately and directly quoted. (ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND VERIFIABLE.) The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A “full source” is assumed to include author’s name, author’s qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source with page numbers. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author and/or publication name as well as a phrase along the lines of “previously cited.”

Conduct - Absolutely no personal attacks or ‘flames’. Please address your criticisms to arguments, not to people. If you violate this rule, your post will be deleted, and at the discretion of the moderator, you may be removed from the debate forum.

Important: Remember, debates are constructed for the benefit of the membership/listener, not your opponent. In other words, address your arguments to the audience! (Eg: "Mr. Smith has not shown how 'A' is true, because...)

4. If there is a specific person you wish to debate please state their name or state if you want the ExC members to choose an opponent.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showforum=18

Also, in the thread containing the actual debate, there is no commentary from the other posters..which would be deleted. Other poster's commentaries would be relegated to a special thread pertaining to the debate which is entitled "peanut gallery"

Anyhow, again I bring this up only to give an example of a very formal debate setup. I really don't know, however, if such a format would take up too much of the mods time though.

fwsweet · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 19:45

sagascend wrote:

But this also means that we can't complain about celebrities anymore, so what about the Popular Culture and Popular People fora? I'd be willing to lessen the entertainment value.

This may be a bit off-topic, but you have been unhappy at celebrity-bashing before and I have always overruled you and allowed it. I am having second thoughts that you may be right and I am wrong.

sagascend · **Joined:** Sat 17 Jun 2006 22:24 **Posts:** 2420

fwsweet wrote:

sagascend wrote:

But this also means that we can't complain about celebrities anymore, so what about the Popular Culture and Popular People fora? I'd be willing to lessen the entertainment value.

This may be a bit off-topic, but you have been unhappy at celebrity-bashing before and I have always overruled you and allowed it. I am having second thoughts that you may be right and I am wrong.

We may need to split hairs on this one, perhaps specifying what one is not allowed to reject/ridicule/be dismissive of. A disrespectful or negative People-centered statement like "Shar Jackson is an idiot for having children with Kevin Federline" is certainly negative, but should posters be warned/suspended for merely expressing negative personal opinions of celebrities or public figures? I don't think so.

I suspect that this potential rule is more about erring on the side of respect when discussing group-based identities and the various cultural groups that members belong to or have ancestral ties to. Maybe it is the discouragement of ethnocentrism and one-upmanship. One doesn't have to disparage Germans when professing love for the French. One doesn't have to bash the devout in order to advocate atheism. It's not necessary to put down those who self-identify as multiracials when discussing one's more preferred monoracial identity.

LMartin · **Posted:** Tue 15 May 2007 20:46

fwsweet wrote:

sagascend wrote:

But this also means that we can't complain about celebrities anymore, so what about the Popular Culture and Popular People fora? I'd be willing to lessen the entertainment value.

This may be a bit off-topic, but you have been unhappy at celebrity-bashing before and I have always overruled you and allowed it. I am having second thoughts that you may be right and I am wrong.

I actually didn’t consider individuals. I looked at three people who recently caused offense to see if there was something in common. The three people are Dragon Horse, Mulattokid and myself. For example, some of us took offense at Dragon Horse’s comments about East Asian men. The discussion had gone along fine until Dragon Horse referred dismissively to the people rather than the thing under discussion (by itself). Mulattokid refers continually to people as a group in a dismissive and disparaging way. I, myself, was dismissive of people, rather than their identity, which would have been more appropriate, and is my general rule. Though the offense taken (in this last instance) was not directly to that statement, I’m going to assume it was the more legitimate offense given; anyway, it set the stage for the actual offense taken.

But now I think about it, individuals should not make a difference. Celebrities are people too – they have feelings. Even though it’s not likely they’ll visit this site, I don’t see why behavior here should be predicated on that. Anyway, the point I would make is that individuals can only be criticized on their views, speech or actions, and on specific instances of these. A blanket negation would be unsubstantiated because no individual is any specific view, speech or action. I don’t want to come off as too moralistic, but you would not be correct to negate the individual for a specific view, speech or action. Same as for a group – you do not judge on the views, speech or actions of a few. People are constantly changing. So if you reject someone, aren’t you judging that person for the future, and the past, which neither need be the same as the present? Isn’t all behavior learned? Of course, most people don’t object to celebrity bashing, but it doesn’t mean they approve. But there is nothing wrong if the rule is there in case it is needed.

Maybe this can best be reduced to not judging the whole by the part, which after all is rational rather than moralistic.

I’m just throwing these things out for consideration.

The Study of Racialism

Forum rules

The perception of anti-Black bias by this site

Who is online