Principles of Debate

I participated in two heated discussions recently. One in my livejournal, another in yesterday's journalism class. It brought to mind a couple of points.

1 - The basis for debate needs to be substantive. He said/she said is just pointless.

2 - Keep the focus on the facts. Innuendo/sly slander and politics "well, I did the great blah-blah article and therefore..." and "you're just a student while I'm..." are irrelevant to the facts.

( Read more... )

3 - The two parties have to agree on the terms and what they consider a worthwhile text of reference.

( Read more... )

4 - The basis for the debate has to be provable. Have your facts straight.

( Read more... )

Yesterday the journalists started with he said/she said, everyone was mad at the Managing Editor and an important writer was trying to sway the class against her, and already had the teacher's ear.

I got up, stood at the board and wrote down facts -- "Okay, so far I hear... Communication..." *tap tap* "Deadlines..."

It was obvious when what was said just politics, because there was nothing for me to write down. I just stood there, chalk poised. Finally I restated it, "So the issue is [restate]?"

When names got mentioned: "That sounds like a personal issue. We don't need to discuss that as a group. Maybe you should take it up with..."

That focused everyone on solving the real problems. Kept bringing us back to: "Okay. How do we plan to solve this?"

The Managing Editor had stormed out of the room early in the discussion, so when she returned and tried to restart the (resolved) personal debate: "Actually, we resolved that" (i.e. you abdicated when you left) "and now the topic of discussion is [x]."

Moving to a filtered friendslist.

When I first started this journal, I had about thirty people on my friendslist and we knew each other, kept up on each other's lives. Some of us had chatted online or exchanged emails and compliments over each other's stories.

It looks like I need to go to a filtered friendslist.

Wake up call number one. About two months ago, I posted some personal complaints, and someone called someone else a name in my journal. It turned into a big public deal. I've refused to censor myself in my own damned journal.

Wake up call number two. At another point I posted a complaint about my boyfriend and got all sorts of unsolicited advice from people. All right. It's my journal, I want to be able to able to complain and I don't want to have to censor myself. But I learned the lesson about not leaving comments open.

Wake up call number three. Then I posted a complaint about essays that turned into a bitter war with someone who to me, is a complete and total stranger - they're not even on my friendslist. Everything they said bespoke a complete ignorance me and even my past posts. It was a huge waste of time. But it's my damned journal and I want to be able to write what I like.

In a discussion with machiavellian I mentioned, "Well I have a very public journal."

And that's the problem, isn't it?

People friend me and read this journal not for me but for the stories and the occasional essay I put out. Which is my main use for this journal after all -- just read my user information. I've always had a policy of friending everyone who friends me, but most people friend me for the stories.

I haven't wanted to do this, damn it, but I don't want to end my friending policy (I've met some interesting people that way) and I'll never keep up two journals.

So this weekend my personal stuff, school rants, wildernessguru, etc., will go to a filtered friendslist.

Drop a comment if you want to be on the filtered friendslist. My feelings won't be hurt if you just want Harry Potter stories because to me that means hey, you like my stories.

ETA: wildernessguru says, "No matter what way you say it this is censorship." He's absolutely right. It sucks that I have to take this step. But battles over what is essentially entertainment for me are worse.