The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[Alzrius]

Nobody owes you a debate

Likewise, nobody owes you unquestioning acceptance of your premise, whatever it may be.

 

[Lanefan]

But also: who cares if someone is creating a + thread with an open-ended opinion? Just don't reply, don't read it, and move on. Or ignore them!

Putting people on ignore just isn't something I do, on principle.

 

[Gradine]

Likewise, nobody owes you unquestioning acceptance of your premise, whatever it may be.

The difference is, I'm not asking for that.

 

[Lanefan]

A minor notation here to say that "always" has different contextual inferences (as I see it). I think that there are times and places where a particular debate on a particular topic is in poor taste, e.g. it's probably not a good idea to debate different religious beliefs about the afterlife at someone's funeral. So in that sense it's not "always" up for debate.

Agreed. You put this better than I could have.

Alternatively, "always" can mean "perpetually" in the sense that certain topics can eventually become settled insofar as no one having a legitimate basis for questioning them. That I disagree with. No matter how virtuous/moral/sacred an idea may be, it is never beyond being examined, questioned, and debated.

Very much agreed.

 

[Emoshin]

1 is not a good option, as I noted elsewhere.

2 is something I very much disagree with - everything is always up for debate, even in those cases where one or more sides in said debate is demonstrably wrong.

Imagine a room with 10 people:

• 5 of those people love a formal debate
• the other 5 people hate formal debates

The debate-philes hear the debate-phobes discussing something, and they wade into their conversation on why something is demonstrably wrong. Why? Because the debate-philes are concerned about an "echo chamber" happening in the room and must act on it.

So the debate-phobes, having nowhere else to go, just leave the room.

Now you have a room with 5 debate-philes. The room is now an echo chamber for the advantages of debating.

How is that optimal?

 

[Alzrius]

The difference is, I'm not asking for that.

Likewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.

 

[Gradine]

Likewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.

They pretty clearly did, actually

 

[Xamnam]

Likewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.

I see very little daylight between that and

But a thread something like "5e D&D is the best RPG system ever! (+)" IMO deserves to have its + tag challenged all over the place

Now, I can see a difference between questioning an assertion, and asking for a debate, but the end result to the person it's being directed towards is largely the same.

 

[Alzrius]

They pretty clearly did, actually

No, looking at the post you replied to, they really didn't.

But if you want to know what someone meant by something, I recommend asking them. It's usually pretty effective, watch:

Hey @Lanefan, where you saying that people owed you a debate?

 

[Lanefan]

Imagine a room with 10 people:

• 5 of those people love a formal debates
• the other 5 people hate formal debates

The debate-philes hear the debate-phobes discussing something, and they wade into their conversation on why something is demonstrably wrong. Why? Because the debate-philes are concerned about an "echo chamber" happening in the room and must act on it.

If the debate-phobes are such because they simply dislike having their stances and opinions challenged, even if-when such challenges are polite and reasonable, then I have no sympathy for them.

If however by "formal debates" you mean Robert's Rules and motions and points of order then yeah, I can see that.