Rhetorical Dogma vs. Tolerant Discussion, which contributes more to a debate?

You really have too much time on your hands ..

I have to say I am somewhat stunned at a couple of the answers so far. I have sat back and read political questions and answers for days now, obsessed with those that are defining themselves as liberal/democrat thinkers ( Check out jenny_is_hot and THE_ROCK if you want to get an idea of what I am talking about). They have spewed more hate and blame than I can even comprehend, and though some of it comes from fact and intelligence, some of it comes from ignorance.

I consider my self to be a conservative. Ultra conservative? Probably not, but I sure get lumped in with them when people are seeking to find blame with republicans. I have heard how my god is being forced on others, I have heard how we don't serve in the military but expect others to do so, I have heard how I am a racist, and I have heard that I have no tolerance. This question alone is directed at my dogma rhetoric. And the answers from KERMIT M and ceprn were the first to start attacking conservatives. Not open tolerant discussion mind you, just attacking.

Now let me enlighten you a little. I am an athiest, my son just signed up for Navy SEALs (he is ultra-conservative), I am certainly not racist (as all of my friends from many cultures will tell you. I even purposely sent my son to a school that was not predominently white so that he would be exposed and educated on all walks of life. Ultra-conservative that he is...he is not racist either), And I have never gotten on here to disrespect others who don't agree with my point of view.

Peoples opinions vary based on what they have experienced in life , and often those experiences are limited. So, yes, there is a need for discussion, and there is a need for seeing the extreme of both sides so that you can observe how extremism on either end of the spectrum actually is the same behavior and yields the same results. The only way to find a happy medium is to discuss and enlighten and educate.

Yes, I would agree that there are many ultra-conservatives who are on here bashing too. They also come from ignorance. Don't join the crowd. Be a part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Intelligent discussion is always better than dogma (or worse yet, name-calling). Dogma really adds nothing to the discussion, because we already know where pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity stand on the issues and we don't need to have their views parroted back to us by people who may or may not even understand the issues as well as their not-so-bright idols do. If there's any value whatsoever in dogma, it's only in showing the rest of us what to avoid.

It's especially pointless when someone posts a question saying, "Give me one example of [fill in the blank]", and people reply with dozens of valid answers, then the asker picks the one saying, "You're right, the Liberals have nothing", or something to that effect. This is juvenile and dishonest, and serves no purpose because everyone can still see all of the answers, exposing the asker as a liar.

I'm glad to have you back. My first reaction to your August 25th answers was that maybe I had misjudged you and there was one less ally in the battle against ignorance. Then I saw the one where you said we must always support the President, right or wrong, and I knew that no intelligent person would say that. That was when I suspected that someone had hijacked your identity. I suppose some people just thought you had finally seen the light, which is both hilariously funny and very sad. I wonder if the asker who picked your answer as the best one had any idea you were putting him on. I think it was an interesting experiment.

I have one more comment for those who like dogma and sound bites. If you can't defend your views with anything but dogma, and you're not willing to discuss the reasons why you believe what you do, maybe it's time to ask yourself why you continue to support something you can't defend in your own words.

Finally, what's up with this "cora the explorer" stuff? That's preschool-level ridicule. No one over the age of 5 would take offense.

Interesting question. I think that all comments contribute to the debate, but possibly not in the sense you mean. I find the personal attributes of the people asking and answering to be as interesting as their viewpoints.

For example, if persons holding a particular viewpoint continually misspell words, use inappropriate language, bad grammar, and stray from the point into rhetoric, it gives me a certain perception of ALL people who hold that point of view. Stereotyping - yes. But I admire people who can discuss in a tolerant and intelligent fashion, and am more inclined to give their opinions weight, because I have the impression they have thought about it.

On the other hand, this medium rewards speed, and sound bites are so much easier to read than lengthy discourse.

I was wondering what you were doing. I was starting to lose respect for you over some of the answers you posted.

People who post rhetorical dogma, as you put it, are not looking for a debate. They simply are looking for vindication of their own views.

In tolerant discussion, using your term again, the count and counterpoint discussion becomes a learning experience for all participants. It is in these types of discussions opposing views can meet, meld, and morph into an entirely new idea.

You question as to whether there is a place or need for both seems rhetorical. I think you already know when a person limits themselves to a rigid viewpoint problems arise. When society does so wars erupt.

It's really sad because there is so much rhetorical dogma on here much of which is just garbage! Of course tolerant discussion contributes more but I think people's passions right now are at an all time high. No matter which side of the fence you're on, the line is drawn! I prefer the "short sound-bites" if the question warrants that however there are times when we really need to explain ourselves. I have NO tolerance for ANYONE who claims to have the "One True Way". So yes there are times when both are appropriate.

First off it's great to see someone asking an intelligent and open question on this website.

In my opinion a more through debate is conducted with a mix of both. By that I mean it is important to believe that you are correct (Rhetorical Dogma) but is also very important to explain your answer in a through and intelligent manner, otherwise you are not getting anything done except for getting a few people rilled up.

Each by themselves only work in certain venues and with certain people. For example on yahoo answers a vast majority of answers will be one sentence of illogical, unexplained, nonsense. So in a venue like this where most long winded answers are not even read, you can reach more people by posting something short and to the point without explanation. In my opinion this is stupid but if we explore this website it really is the truth (again in most cases) not matter how much we wish it weren't

On the other hand if you are talking with a group of friends about political and social issues it is important to look at the whole issue because you are not necessarily trying to convert each other but rather have an intelligent conversation. Even if you are trying to convert one another you will take the time to explain your opinion in a way that will give you credibility.

Peace. Love. Unity. Tim D

Dude, D - U - D - E! (as someone else has said).

With as much chaff as Y!A contains, it is unbelievable that we heard word one of complaint about your "wasting" the resource with your experiment.

I have to register a modicum of agreement with other respondents who have noted that certain media are more suited to long-form discussion of issues than others. The advantage of Y!A is that it, in effect, supports "narrow-casting" by permitting those of you who don't want to read or write long answers to simply skip over an entry.

As I noted in another response to one of your questions (that, like this one, also was fated not to earn "best answer"), I look for information content in responses, be they brief "rants" or long-winded legalistic twaddle (nothing you've written, of course). If there IS a point in there, internal logic, or reference to values, I'll consider it. Certainly well-written entries that avoid ad hominem attacks are more easily received and probably get more of my attention than the other kind.

So is there a place and/or a reason for both? My answer is: if you strongly believe something, tell me about it. Try to help me understand why. If your style is to provide a brief response, cool--just try to avoid a "hit and run" entry that doesn't inform. There's not much need for political catch phrases and empty vitriol.

Good one Bud. I sometimes get long-winded myself...and to prove my long-windedness here goes.

I think an intelligent person can rationalize anything with an essay, but at least by examining the parts of the argument, you find elements of the arguments that you've never thought of before. When I took the test on the site i've included below, I found that if I just answered the question without analyzing it deeply for what the question meant (just on face value) it pushed my political stance to the right, if I thought about each question and looked for a deeper meaning and made examples to myself, it pushed my stance to the left and Libertarian. Not surprising, even when I answered on face value, my stance was completely opposite that of George W. Bush.

But for example, through answering stupid questions, I have been forced to search deeper for answers than I normally would (I would generally trust my instincts and logic). I have changed just in the last week my stand on the Iraq war...granted my instinct was probably at the root of it:

I have been against the Iraq conflict since I heard that Bush was sending troops to Kuwait in preparation...I knew it was an ill concecived idea on a gut level. But I am just a guy in the corn fields of Minnesota, the only things I can do is vote, spout my opinion, and write my representatives. The change in me was to accept the fact that we are in deep $hit over there and that the USA needs to finish it. The government needs to define a mission and the American people will decide if it's the road to take...the rest of need to fall in line. I have a feeling that the next president will be a Democrat or at least a moderate Republican and this person will have to decide how to solve the problem. He will certainly use more diplomacy, but I will be surprized if he withdraws from Iraq...he will probably widen the war. This doesn't mean I won't continue to dislike Bush and his ilk (hopefully everyone will remember where the Neo-cons left us at 2008), I hope not, but I think a wider war is inevitable and when it happens we need to use all our strength to win it.

I will continue to express my opinions on greater freedoms, the Constitution is the one document, otherwise we aren't America. Ultra Conservatives need to be treated as extremist Americans in the catagory of the most left leaning tree huggers. The middle needs to dominate.

But in answer to you, I guess that it appears to me that the ultra conservative crowd doesn't look into anything very deep. I actually posted an apology regarding Bush's IQ, because I found that the site was a fake. I haven't seen anything looking like honest, intelligent discussion coming from the right...they're happy when they see a right leaning word, but they are very stuck in their ideology.

For the sake of this question let's assume that for any subject, there are two general categories of people: the deep and the shallow. The deep are interested in all sides, learning as much as they can from as many sources as possible, checking and rechecking their facts until they believe that they have a thorough opinion unclouded by bias or baseless theories. These people enjoy the opinions of other deep people, and appreciate rational discussion that challenges their opinions. Deep people, for any subject, are a tiny minority.

Shallow people, on the other hand, like having two choices, sometimes even one choice. They want to be given the vote of Coke or Pepsi, don't even talk about Dr. Pepper. They like having extremist options and choosing whichever sounds least psychotic. They may not fully understand their beliefs, but regardless feel strongly about them. These people would have no involvement in the subject without the catchy soundbites and rhetoric.

I'm not saying anyone is universally deep or shallow (for example, I consider myself musically and philosophically deep, but shallow when it comes to choosing a football team to root for). There are just certain subjects (religion, politics) that nearly everyone wants or feels obligated to be involved in, but of which not everyone is willing or able to invest the energy to gain a deep understanding.

All I have to say is Im glad Im not the only one who came to the conclusion that this can be used as a learning tool. I dont want to go into exactly what kind of questions or answers specifically were used in this way for me but I found the results to be interesting at the least.